Christopher England v. Nancy Berryhill , 696 F. App'x 288 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 21 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER L. ENGLAND, No. 14-35538
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01417- BR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 8, 2017**
Portland, Oregon
Before: TASHIMA, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher England (“England”) initially applied for Social Security
Disability benefits in May, 2011. That application was denied, and England did
not file an appeal within the allotted time. England claims that he did not appeal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
because at the time of his denial, he was not represented by counsel and was
suffering from lupus fog, which incapacitated him. In February, 2012, England,
now represented by counsel, filed a motion to reopen the previous denial, alleging
good cause for the late filing. He also filed a second application for benefits. The
ALJ denied England’s motion to reopen and denied his second application on res
judicata grounds. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Council, England
appealed to the district court, which dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
“Where a claimant alleges that a prior determination should be reopened
because he suffered from a mental impairment and was not represented by counsel
at the time of the denial of benefits, he has asserted a colorable constitutional
claim.” Udd v. Massanari, 245 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Evans v.
Chater, 110 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1997)). England made such allegations, and
the district court was therefore incorrect in dismissing for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, we may affirm for any grounds supported by the record.
Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 508 (9th Cir. 1987). We conclude that
England’s motion to reopen his first application is properly denied on its merits.
2
The record does not support England’s claim that he was suffering lupus fog.
England therefore has not shown good cause for reopening his first claim.
England’s second claim for benefits was rightly dismissed as res judicata.
Both claims presented the same parties, the same facts, and the same issues. See
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
3