Colleen Marie Courtney v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLLEEN MARIE COURTNEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16654
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01244-DAD-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16654
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 of 2 --