Carlos Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 33

ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/24/2016. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CARLOS HERNANDEZ,

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00110-DAD-SMS

Plaintiff,
ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

(Doc. 32)

Defendant.

15
16

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s letter, received on August 15, 2016. Doc. 32.

17

Plaintiff responded to the August 8, 2016, minute order, wherein the Court directed the parties to

18

provide an update on the status of this case. Doc. 31. The letter states, in relevant part: “I thought

19

that all the information that the court requested was already filed. The last documents that I sent was

20
21

the closed brief classified as CONFIDENTIAL and never got a confirmation notice that was
received. I don’t understand what other documents the court needs from me.” Doc. 32. Based on

22
23
24

Plaintiff’s statements, the Court construes the letter as a status update and a motion for clarification,
warranting further direction by the Court.

25

On February 2, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion to file an

26

amendment to his first amended complaint. Doc. 29. An order amending the scheduling order was

27

also issued and sent to Plaintiff that same day. Doc. 30. The order states, in relevant part:

28

Within thirty (30) days after service of this order, appellant shall serve
on respondent a letter brief outlining the reasons why he/she contends
that a remand is warranted. The letter brief shall succinctly set forth
the relevant issues and reasons for the remand. The letter brief itself
shall NOT be filed with the court and it shall be marked
“confidential.” A separate proof of service reflecting that the letter
brief was served on respondent shall be filed with the court.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Doc. 30, p. 2 (emphasis added). Plaintiff was therefore required to file a proof of service, no later
than March 2, 2016, showing his letter brief was served on Defendant. Similarly, Defendant was to

7
serve a responsive letter brief on Plaintiff and file a proof of service with the Court thirty-five days
8
9

after service of Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief. Doc. 30, p. 2.
To date, no proof of service has been filed by Plaintiff or Defendant. While Plaintiff states

10
11

he sent “brief classified as CONFIDENTIAL and never got a confirmation notice that was received,”

12

it is unknown to whom and when he sent the brief.1 And Defendant cannot serve her responsive

13

confidential letter brief without receipt of Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief. Consequently, the

14

parties’ failure to comply with the February 2, 2016 order triggered the Court’s request for a status

15
16

update.
Compliance with the scheduling order is mandatory and essential to the Court’s management

17
18

and resolution of a case. Mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will therefore provide

19

another opportunity for compliance with the amended scheduling order. To accommodate for the

20

lapse of time, the Court will once again amend the scheduling order. Plaintiff is admonished that

21

failure to comply with the scheduling order as amended below may result in a recommendation that

22
this case be dismissed.
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On December 18, 2015, the Commissioner notified the Court that on December 15, 2015, she
“received a packet from Plaintiff . . . which included a document containing a summary of
disabilities and narrative description of impairments.” Doc. 24, pg. 2. That receipt of the document
predated the original (issued December 30, 2015) and amended scheduling order suggests it was not
the confidential letter brief Plaintiff was required to file under the amended scheduling order.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the parties to comply with the scheduling order
amended as follows:
1. Within thirty (30) days after service of this order, appellant shall serve on respondent a letter
brief outlining the reasons why he/she contends that a remand is warranted. The letter brief
shall succinctly set forth the relevant issues and reasons for the remand. The letter brief itself
shall NOT be filed with the court and it shall be marked “confidential.” A separate proof of
service reflecting that the letter brief was served on respondent shall be filed with the court.
2. Within thirty−five (35) days after service of appellant’s letter brief, respondent shall serve a
response to appellant's letter brief on appellant. The response itself shall NOT be filed with
the court and it shall be marked “confidential.” A separate proof of service reflecting that the
response was served on appellant shall be filed with the court.
3. In the event the parties stipulate to a remand to the Commissioner, the stipulation shall be
filed with the Court WITHIN fifteen (15) days after respondent serves his response on
appellant.
4. In the event respondent does not agree to a remand, within thirty (30) days of service of
respondent's response, appellant shall file and serve an opening brief with the court and on
respondent.

13
14
15
16
17

5. In the event that the parties have already engaged in the prior steps (1-4), appellant shall file
and serve an opening brief with the court and on respondent within thirty (30) days of service
of this order.
6. Respondent’s responsive brief shall be filed with the court and served on appellant within
thirty (30) days after service of appellant's opening brief.

18

7. Appellant’s reply brief shall be filed with the court and served on respondent within fifteen
(15) days after service of respondent's brief.

19

8. Paragraphs 9-15 of the original scheduling order (Doc. 26) remain intact.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 24, 2016

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28