Jeremiah Valenzuela v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 10

Order discharging 8 Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/1/2015. (Return of Service Deadline: 5/25/2015) (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMIAH VALENZUELA,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00291-SAB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

v.
(ECF Nos. 8, 9)

14

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action challenging the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits on February 23, 2015, along with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
was approved on February 26, 2015, and a summons and scheduling order were issued in this
action on that same date. The scheduling order informed Plaintiff that “Except when other
provision is made pursuant to an application to proceed in forma pauperis, within twenty (20)
days of filing the complaint, appellant shall serve the summons, complaint, the notice and form
of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge provided by Local Rule 305(a), and a copy of
this order and file return of service with this court.” (Scheduling Order ¶ 1, ECF No. 6.)
On April 8, 2015, after Plaintiff did not file a proof of service in compliance with the
scheduling order, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a notice of status of service

28

1

1 within ten days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not respond to the April 8, 2015 order.
2

On April 23, 2015, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action

3 should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the orders of the Court. On April 30, 2015,
4 Plaintiff filed a response stating that counsel was unable to open the summons, ECF No. 5, and
5 had made several calls to the clerk’s help desk to obtain assistance with the issue and eventually
6 received an e-mail from Lori Wagers.
7

Counsel is advised that in practicing in the Eastern District counsel are expected to

8 become familiar with the Local Rules and comply with the orders issued by the Court. The
9 Court finds Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause to be without merit. The summons in
10 this action issued on February 26, 2015. When Plaintiff encountered problems with opening the
11 document several attempts were made to contact the help desk and after receiving an e-mail on
12 April 16, 2015, to which they responded no reply has been received. However, based upon the
13 information Plaintiff is providing, counsel is contacting the Central District for assistance in this
14 action. Further the Court issued an order on April 8, 2015, and Plaintiff has provided no reason
15 why he did not comply with the order.
16

While the Court is sympathetic to the issue that counsel experienced in attempting to

17 view the document, the lack of diligence in addressing the problem is not taken lightly by this
18 Court. Counsel needs to verify that it is the Eastern District instructions that are being used to
19 access the Eastern District ECM/ECF system. The Court has checked with the Clerk’s Office
20 and they are aware of no other attorney that has experienced a similar problem which indicates
21 that this may be a problem for counsel’s IT department to resolve.
22

Counsel is directed to contact the Eastern District help desk at [phone] if further

23 assistance is needed. If Plaintiff continues to be unable to access the summons, he should
24 contact the Eastern District Clerk’s Office and request a copy of the document so service can be
25 completed in compliance with the Court’s scheduling order.
26

Based on Plaintiff’s response, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause,

27 filed April 23, 2015 is DISCHARGED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the return of service within
28 twenty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in

2

1 sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action.
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated:

May 1, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3