Cardenas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 30

ORDER that Plaintiff file a written statement showing cause why case should not be dismissed or that Plaintiff file an opening brief. By no later than February 17, 2017 , Plaintiff shall either: a) file a written respons e to this Order to Show Cause; or b) file an Opening Brief that conforms with the requirements set forth in the Informational Order. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in dismissal of this action. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/2/2017. (Thorp, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN MARTIN CARDENAS, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 1:15-cv-01939-SKO ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOWING CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR THAT PLAINTIFF FILE AN OPENING BRIEF (Doc. 28) Defendant. _____________________________________/ 17 18 On December 29, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the present action in 19 this Court. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for 20 benefits. (Doc. 1.) On September 6, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ stipulated request to 21 modify the Scheduling Order (Doc. 14) to require Plaintiff to file and serve his opening brief by 22 no later than October 3, 2016 (Doc. 15). 23 On October 3, 2016, the same day as the deadline for filing Plaintiff’s opening brief, see 24 Doc. 17 (Minute Order setting expedited briefing schedule), Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to 25 withdraw as attorney of record, stating that she has been unable to contact Plaintiff about his case, 26 making it unreasonably difficult for her to carry out her representation of Plaintiff effectively. 27 (Doc. 16.) On November 23, 2016, the Court found that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with 28 California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(A)(2) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 1 182(d), and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw without prejudice to refiling and curing the 2 defects identified therein. (Doc. 21.) On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel filed her 3 amended motion to withdraw. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw as attorney of record on January 18, 2017, 4 5 and the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file and serve his opening brief to February 1, 6 2017. (Doc. 28.) That same day, January 18, 2017, Plaintiff was served with an Informational 7 Order for Pro Se Litigants. The Informational Order detailed Plaintiff’s (Doc. 29.) 8 responsibilities as a pro se litigant, including the substantive requirements of an opening brief, and 9 required that the opening brief be filed and served by no later than February 1, 2017. (Doc. 29, p. 10 1.) Plaintiff was further advised of the deadlines for the Commissioner’s responsive brief and for 11 any reply brief. (Doc. 29, p. 3.) These deadlines were also set forth on page 3 of the 12 Informational Order that was served on Plaintiff. (Id.) 13 On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff failed to file and serve his opening brief with the Court and 14 on opposing counsel. (See Docket.) Plaintiff is, therefore, ordered to show cause, if any, why the 15 action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s January 18, 2017, Order 16 extending the time to file Plaintiff’s opening brief to February 1, 2017 (Doc. 28). Alternatively, 17 Plaintiff may file an opening brief. 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 By no later than February 17, 2017, Plaintiff shall either: 20 a. file a written response to this Order to Show Cause; or 21 b. file an Opening Brief that conforms with the requirements set forth in the 22 Informational Order. 23 Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in dismissal of this action. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 27 February 2, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2 .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?