Blades v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Craig Phillip Blades, No. CV-24-00006-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Craig Blades seeks reconsideration of the order remanding this case for additional proceedings. (Doc. 26.) Blades explains “[p]rimarily the reason is due to res judicata (claim preclusion).” (Doc. 28 at 1.) Blades believes the Social Security Administration has asserted a “claim before this court” that “should be dismissed for res judicata.” (Doc. 28 at 2.) Blades requests “that all monies collected from [his] monthly disability payments . . . be returned promptly to him.” (Doc. 28 at 2.)

21 Blades filed his motion within twenty-eight days of the judgment. Thus, his motion will be construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. That type of motion “should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 26 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).

27 Blades has not presented any newly discovered evidence, has not identified any clear error, and there has not been a change in controlling law. Therefore, Blades is not || entitled to relief. Blades is free to argue claim preclusion and seek a return of “all monies” || during the proceeding on remand.

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

5 Dated this 18th day of December, 2024. g A Ad OG IV. hte ( Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 9 United States District Judge _2-