Sanchez v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER re 17 Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the order forthwith will result in dismissal of this case on September 28, 2015. See attached order. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/14/2015.(Esposito, A.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ------------------------------x : CARMEN SANCHEZ on behalf of : J.J.S. : : v. : : CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY and SOCIAL : SECURITY ADMINISTRATION : : ------------------------------x Civ. No. 3:15CV00306(SALM) September 14, 2015 ORDER Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed this action on March 3, 2015. [Doc. #1] On March 3, 2015, Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons entered the Standing Scheduling Order in Social Security Cases, which establishes, inter alia, the following deadline: Within 60 Days after the filing of the Answer, the plaintiff must serve and file a Motion for Order Reversing the Commissioner’s Decision, or for other relief, and a supporting memorandum. [Doc. #3 ¶I(c)]. Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin (“defendant”) filed her answer to the complaint on June 1, 2015. [Doc. #13] On June 2, 2015, this Court entered a Scheduling Order directing plaintiff to file a Motion to Reverse and/or Remand by July 31, 2015 [Doc. #14] On July 31, 2015, the day the motion was due, plaintiff filed a First Motion for Extension of Time, seeking 1 until August 31, 2015, to file a motion. [Doc. #15] The extension was granted absent objection and a revised scheduling order was entered. [Doc. #16] The Court added that it did “not anticipate granting any further extensions of time.” Id. No motion was filed by the plaintiff on or before August 31, 2015. On September 8, 2015, an order entered directing plaintiff to show cause by September 11, 2015, why she failed to file her Motion to Reverse and/or Remand by August 31, 2015. [Doc. #17] As of this date, plaintiff has not filed a Motion to Reverse and/or Remand or responded to the Order to Show Cause. Rule 41(a) of the Local Rules of this District provides: In civil actions in which no action has been taken by the parties for six (6) months or in which deadlines established by the Court pursuant to Rule 16 appear not to have been met, the Clerk shall give notice of proposed dismissal to counsel of record and pro se parties, if any. If such notice has been given and no action has been taken in the action in the meantime and no satisfactory explanation is submitted to the Court within twenty (20) days thereafter, the Clerk shall enter a judgment. Any such judgment entered by the Clerk under this Rule may be suspended, altered or rescinded by the Court for cause shown. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 41(a) (emphasis added). The plaintiff shall provide a “satisfactory explanation” for her failure to meet the deadlines by the Court forthwith, or this case will be dismissed on September 28, 2015, that is, 20 2 days after the entry of the Order to Show Cause. SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut this 14th day of September, 2015. /s/ _________________________ HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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?