Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why this Action should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with the Scheduling Order and the Court's June 2, 2011 Order; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Serve Plaintiff at Alternative Address signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/1/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
MARISOL FLORES,
9
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

14
15

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10cv02004 DLB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SERVE
PLAINTIFF AT ALTERNATE ADDRESS

16
17

On October 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed the present action for judicial review of the denial of

18

Social Security benefits. On October 25, 2010, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. The

19

Scheduling Order states that within 120 days after service, Defendant shall file and serve a copy

20

of the administrative record, which shall be deemed an answer to the complaint. The Order also

21

provides that within 30 days after service of the administrative record, Plaintiff shall serve on

22

Defendant a letter brief outlining why remand is warranted. Defendant shall respond to the letter

23

within 35 days. Thereafter, if Defendant does not stipulate to remand, Plaintiff must file and

24

serve an opening brief within 30 days of Defendant’s response.

25

On February 28, 2011, Defendant filed the administrative record. On June 2, 2011, the

26

Court granted attorney Lawrence D. Rohlfing’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for

27

Plaintiff and substituted Plaintiff pro se. The dates in the Scheduling Order were extended 45

28

days. Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed on or before July 21, 2011.
1

1

Plaintiff failed to file her opening brief. On August 8, 2011, the Court issued an Order to

2

Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s

3

Scheduling Order And the Court’s June 2, 2011, order. The Court has attempted service on

4

Plaintiff twice, but the order has been returned both times by the United States Postal Service as

5

undeliverable.

6

Upon review of the Motion to Withdraw, it appears that Mr. Rohlfing may have provided

7

an incorrect street name. He lists Plaintiff’s address as 605 N. Popular Avenue, Fresno,

8

California, 93728.1 It is likely that the address is 605 N. Poplar Avenue, Fresno, California,

9

93728.

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, if any she has, why this action should not

11

be dismissed for failure to comply with the Scheduling Order and the Court’s June 2, 2011 order.

12

Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause WITHIN twenty

13

(20) days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff desires more time to file her brief, she should so

14

state in her response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in dismissal

15

of this action.

16

To ensure that the Court has made every possible attempt to notify Plaintiff of the status

17

of this action, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve Plaintiff at 605 N. Poplar

18

Avenue, Fresno, California, 93728.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

September 1, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

For an unknown reason, the docket reflects an address of 6052 N. Popular Avenue, Fresno, California,
93728. Re-service was also attempted at this address and failed as “undeliverable, return to sender, insufficient
address, unable to forward.”

2