Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion for clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/25/15: Further briefing in the case shall proceed in accordance with the court's May 7, 2014 scheduling order.(Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNEISHA MOORE, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:14-cv-0820-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. 17 18 The court’s May 7, 2014 scheduling order in this case provides that plaintiff “shall file a 19 motion for summary judgment and/or remand within 45 days from being served with a copy of 20 the administrative record.” (ECF No. 5.) On February 5, 2015, the Commissioner lodged the 21 administrative transcript. (ECF No. 19.) Thereafter, on March 20, 2015, plaintiff timely filed her 22 opening motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.) 23 However, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was also accompanied by a motion for 24 clarification. (ECF No. 21.) That motion seeks unspecified clarification of the court’s prior order 25 denying plaintiff’s December 31, 2014 “request for judgment” as premature. The court’s prior 26 order reasoned as follows: 27 28 Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 5), plaintiff’s “request for judgment,” liberally construed as a motion for summary judgment, is premature, because the Commissioner has 1 1 2 3 not yet filed and served the administrative record. Therefore, the court denies the motion without prejudice as premature and will not consider the contents of that motion. After the Commissioner files the administrative record, plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment in accordance with the requirements and deadlines set forth in the court’s scheduling order. 4 5 (ECF No. 17.) It is unclear what further clarification plaintiff seeks. The administrative 6 transcript has now been filed, and plaintiff has filed her opening motion for summary judgment. 7 In accordance with the court’s scheduling order, the Commissioner shall then file any opposition 8 to plaintiff’s motion within 30 days from service of plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff may, but need 9 not, file a reply brief within 21 days from service with the Commissioner’s opposition. (See ECF 10 No. 5.) After expiration of the deadline for filing any reply brief, the case shall be submitted for 11 decision without oral argument on the record and written briefing, unless the court specifically 12 requests additional written briefing or oral argument. Because the court’s orders are sufficiently 13 clear and specific, no further clarification is needed at this juncture. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 21) is denied. 16 2. Further briefing in the case shall proceed in accordance with the court’s May 7, 2014 17 18 scheduling order, as summarized above. Dated: March 25, 2015 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?