The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-36010•Jean Paul Lauren v. Social Security Administration
09-36010Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 7, 2011
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEAN PAUL LAUREN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-36010
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00001-CSO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Carolyn S. Ostby, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 14, 2010***
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jean Paul Lauren appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action against the Commissioner of Social Security alleging improper denial
FILED
JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-36010 2
of his Plan to Achieve Self-Support (“PASS”). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s decision. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. San Jose Christian
Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lauren’s
proposed PASS failed adequately to delineate the part of his income that he
intended to “use or set aside to use for expenses . . . determine[d] to be reasonable
and necessary to fulfill an approved [PASS,]” as was necessary to evaluate his
eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income he sought to obtain. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.1180 et seq. (setting forth requirements for viable PASS proposals).
The Commissioner’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted.
Lauren’s motion for oral argument is denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.