Zaidi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 52

Standby ORDER Holding Defendant in Contempt of Court Order. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on May 11, 2011. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

SAN JOSE DIVISION
SAYED ZAIDI,
v.

COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-698-PSG
STANDBY ORDER HOLDING
DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT ORDER

On March 3, 2011, this court ordered that "the case is remanded for a determination on

17

[Plaintiff Sayed Zaidi’s ("Zaidi")] request for reconsideration. The determination shall be made no

18

later than March 31, 2011 and should either grant or deny the request. [Zaidi] shall be immediately

19

informed of the determination and afforded any and all appeal rights, including a hearing, that

20

follow under the agency’s regulations." The court entered this order based on an admission months

21

earlier from Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") that he had

22

wrongly denied Zaidi the determination so as to prevent him from exhausting his administrative

23

rights prior to filing this suit. March 31, 2011 came and went, without any indication from the

24

government that it could not and would not comply with the court's order or even that it was taking

25

affirmative stops to comply immediately. Instead, over two weeks later, on April 18, 2011, Zaidi

26

— not the Commissioner — informed the court that he had not yet received any notification

27

regarding his request for reconsideration or any other communication from the Commissioner.

28
Case No.: 10-698
ORDER

1

1

On April 22, 2011, the court ordered the Commissioner to show cause why he had not

2

complied with this court's March 3, 2011 order. On April 27, 2011, the Commissioner filed a

3

pleading explaining that the court's order had initially been routed to the wrong Social Security

4

Administration component, that processing Zaidi's claim would likely require more time than the

5

court had allowed, and offering to file status reports. But despite the court's order, the

6

Commissioner's responsibility for the error giving rise to the order, the Commissioner's

7

responsibility for the routing error causing further delay, and his inexplicable forcing of the court to

8

rely on a report of non-compliance from a pro se plaintiff, the Commissioner once more offered no

9

date by which he would render a determination. In effect, both Zaidi and the court were again told,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

"we'll get back to you."

11

At the hearing on the order to show cause on May 3, 2011, the court made clear that the

12

Commissioner's ongoing violation of the court's order and refusal to provide any date by which a

13

determination would be rendered were not acceptable. The court ordered the Commissioner to

14

deliver a determination to Zaidi no later than May 10, 2011, or to appear for a contempt proceeding

15

if the determination was not issued.

16

On May 6, 2011, Commissioner submitted a declaration explaining that he agreed to follow

17

the court's order by reconsidering Zaidi's claim. At the same time, the Commissioner indicated that

18

he nevertheless required further, unspecified information from Zaidi, had set an appointment for

19

Zaidi to provide that information, and that he would therefore notify Zaidi after a determination

20

had been made at some undetermined later time.

21

On May 10, 2011, the Commissioner appeared at the contempt proceeding and confirmed

22

that he still had not made a determination, "which normally takes between three to four months,"1

23

and still would not say exactly when the determination would be made.

24

The court does not entertain contempt sanctions lightly. This record of intransigence,

25

however, suggests that only contempt sanctions will communicate to the Commissioner that court-

26

ordered deadlines imposed to remedy the Commissioner's long-admitted mistakes need to be

27

1

28

FTR May 10, 2011 2:18:01-18:04 p.m. The court notes this statement is the first indication to
the court of even the approximate time period when Commissioner planned to make a
determination.
2
Case No.: 10-698
ORDER

1

followed. To permit otherwise would be to disregard and disrespect the many other parties with

2

cases in this court that labor mightily to comply with deadlines set by court order. Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on May 17, 2011, the Commissioner will be in contempt

4

of this court unless Zaidi has a determination that allows him to pursue all his administrative

5

remedies as this court has set forth in multiple orders. If required, the court will impose specific

6

contempt sanctions in a further order.

7

Dated: May 11, 2011

8

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 10-698
ORDER

3

1
2
3

Notice of this filing was automatically mailed to counsel via the court’s Electronic Case Filing
system.
A copy of this filing was mailed to:

5

Sayed H Zaidi
81 Mihalakis Street
Apt. #401
Milpitas, CA 95035

6

Dated: May 11, 2011

4

7

/s/ Chambers Staff
________________________________________
Chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 10-698
ORDER

4