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)

Download PDF
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

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?