Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 38

ORDER STRIKING 36 , 37 Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment and Various Other Forms of Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/3/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN CRAIG STEVENS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0020- BAM
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND VARIOUS
OTHER FORMS OF RELIEF
(Docs. 36, 37)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Following the entry of judgment in this case on March 29, 2013, Plaintiff Ryan Stevens
continues to file motions for default judgment and various other forms of relief. (Docs. 36, 37).
Plaintiff originally filed the underlying social security appeal on January 4, 2012. (Doc. 1).
On March 29, 2013, after full briefing by the parties and considering the merits of the case, this Court
issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s appeal from the administrative decision of the Social Security
Commissioner. (Doc. 29). The Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and
on March 29, 2013, Plaintiff’s case was closed. (Doc. 30). On April 3, 2013, five days later, Plaintiff
filed a “Motion for Default Judgment” alleging that the Commissioner’s Opposition Brief was mailed
after the deadline.

(Doc. 32). Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment was STRICKEN as moot.

(Doc. 33). In the Order striking Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, the Court explained that
Plaintiff’s underlying social security case was dismissed on the merits and therefore entering a default
1

1

judgment was improper. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment failed to

2

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 33).

3

On April 15, 2013, Plaintiff again requested default judgment in his favor. (Doc. 34). The

4

Court denied Plaintiff’s second motion for default judgment, explaining that Defendant’s Opposition

5

Brief, the basis for Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, was timely filed. The Court admonished

6

Plaintiff that any future motions for default judgment would be STRICKEN from the record. (Doc.

7

35). Plaintiff was further advised that his case was closed and that no further action would be taken.

8

Ignoring the Court’s previous Orders, Plaintiff continues to argue the Court incorrectly decided

9

this case and has filed two additional motions: (1) urging the Court to again consider his motion for

10

default judgment, or alternatively, “allow Plaintiff to submit his Response Brief” addressing the merits

11

of his default judgment motion; and (2) arguing that the Court failed to “meet its duty to liberally

12

construe Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Default Judgment.” (Docs. 36, 37).

13

The Court has ruled against Plaintiff, and any disagreement with the Court’s ruling may be

14

pursued on appeal, if appropriate and timely. The Court has addressed the issues raised in Plaintiff’s

15

recent filings on multiple occasions and Plaintiff has continued to file motions requesting that the

16

Court enter default in this closed case. (Docs. 33, 35).

17

Based on the Court’s prior instructions and warnings, Plaintiff’s motions filed on May 23,

18

2013 and June 30, 2014, are HEREBY STRICKEN. (Docs. 36, 37). This Court’s docket is already

19

over-burdened with the heaviest caseload in the country and Plaintiff is counseled against filing

20

motions that waste the Court’s time and resources. Plaintiff is admonished that any further filings in

21

this closed matter shall be summarily stricken from the record and his continued failure to abide by the

22

Court’s instructions may result in the imposition of sanctions.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 3, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2