COLLEEN COURTNEY V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 21-16654 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COLLEEN MARIE COURTNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-16654 D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01244-DAD-SAB MEMORANDUM* KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Colleen Marie Courtney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as moot her action alleging that the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) improperly adjusted her Supplemental Security Income benefits to recoup alleged overpayments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). de novo questions of mootness. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. County of Los Angeles, 840 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed as moot Courtney’s action alleging unauthorized recovery of overpayments because on December 1, 2020 the SSA issued letters of decision waiving recoupment of the overpayments at issue and refunded all overpayments that had previously been recouped. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A claim is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 549 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Courtney’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 16) and motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 19) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-16654

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.