Jean Paul Lauren v. Social Security Administration

09-36010Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit7 janv. 2011

Texte intégral

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.