Jean Paul Lauren v. SSA, No. 09-36010 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 07 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEAN PAUL LAUREN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-36010 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00001-CSO v. MEMORANDUM * SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. 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 * 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). 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 09-36010

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.