(SS) Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT IS NOT BARRED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/25/2024. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

KIMBERLY MARGARET JIMENEZ,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00682-SKO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY
COMPLAINT IS NOT BARRED
21-DAY DEADLINE

MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.

15

_____________________________________/

16
17

On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff Kimberly Margaret Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint

18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c). Jimenez v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:20-cv-01808-ADA-GSA (“Jimenez I”).
19 That action sought judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the
20 “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) dated May 28, 2020, denying her application for Supplemental
21 Security Income under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Id. at Doc. 1.
22

The assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations recommending entry

23 of judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner.
24 Jimenez I at Doc. 24. No objections to the findings and recommendations were filed. On October
25 18, 2023, the assigned District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations, and judgment was
26 entered in favor of the Commissioner. Id. at Docs. 25 & 26.
27

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff Kimberly Margaret Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under

28 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner

1 denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under
2 the Act. Plaintiff’s complaint states that it is an “appeal from a final administrative decision denying
3 [P]laintiff’s claim” and references a “Notice of Appeals Council dated April 22, 2024.” (Doc. 1 at
4 2.)
5

Plaintiff filed her motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2024. (Doc. 15.) However,

6 the motion does not mention the final administrative decision dated April 22, 2024, and instead is
7 directed to the decision finalized on May 28, 2020—the decision that was previously adjudicated in
8 Jimenez I. (See id. at 7.) In fact, Plaintiff’s motion makes the same arguments that were considered,
9 and rejected, in Jimenez I. (Compare Doc. 15 with Jimenez I at Docs. 21, 24.)
10

Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to

11 file a brief of no more than ten pages explaining why this action is not barred by the doctrines of res
12 judicata and collateral estoppel, see Mathews v. Chater, 173 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 1999), and is not
13 otherwise untimely, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).
14

The Court cautions Plaintiff that, if she fails to act within twenty-one (21) days of the

15 date of service of this order, summary judgment in favor of Defendant will be granted (see Doc.
16 17).
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated:
20

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

November 25, 2024

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2