Williams-Carter et al v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/02/2017 DENYING Plaintiff's 42 Motion to Reopen Case. No further motions or requests for reconsideration will be entertained in this closed case. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHEILA WILLIAMS-CARTER,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-1744-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

17
18

On January 27, 2015, this court entered judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security

19

and closed this case. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal, but on

20

October 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal for failure to file an

21

opening brief. (ECF No. 40.)

22

Over a year later, on January 31, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and a

23

motion to reopen the case. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.) In the motion, plaintiff indicates that she wishes

24

to re-open her case, because all information regarding this case was sent to her prior address,

25

although she also states that she was following the case on the Internet. She further indicates that

26

she intends to file her brief related to this case within 30 days.

27

Plaintiff provides no explanation for why she failed to keep this court updated with

28

respect to her current address and contact information. In relevant part, Local Rule 182(f)
1

1

provides: “Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the

2

Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the

3

pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro

4

se party shall be fully effective.” Furthermore, she fails to explain her months of inaction in this

5

case (and apparently the appeal), despite purportedly monitoring the case on the Internet. In any

6

event, the court’s January 27, 2015 judgment is final, and plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed over a

7

year ago. As such, there is no proper basis to re-open the case.

8
9
10
11

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case (ECF No. 42) is DENIED. No further
motions or requests for reconsideration will be entertained in this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2