Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration , 472 F. App'x 827 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE VEGA, No. 11-15257
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00735-SMS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, B. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Jesse Vega (“Vega”) appeals the district court’s denial of
his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment affirming the denial of benefits. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vega’s Rule 59(e)
motion. The district court’s order affirming the denial of benefits neither relied on
any manifest errors of law or fact nor resulted in a manifest injustice. Allstate Ins.
Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). In his motion, Vega did not
provide any new evidence or identify any intervening change in controlling law.
Id. Rather, Vega attempted to raise a new argument based on a purported factual
finding in the district court’s order affirming the denial of benefits regarding his
alleged illiteracy. When ruling on a Rule 56 motion, however, the district court
does not make findings of facts. F ED. R. C IV. P. 52(a)(3), 56(a); Scott v. Pasadena
Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 653 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, Vega, who was
represented by counsel, could have included the argument regarding his alleged
illiteracy as support for his summary judgment motion. Kona Enters., Inc. v.
Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “[a] Rule
59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first
time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”).
Accordingly, the district court’s ruling on Vega’s Rule 59(e) motion is
AFFIRMED.
2