Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02187/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02187-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-2187-KJN

ORDER

On October 21, 2013, plaintiff Jean Marc Van den Heuvel (“plaintiff”), proceeding 

without counsel, commenced this action for judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). (ECF No. 1.) On October 24, 2013, the 

court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and directed service upon the 

Commissioner by the U.S. Marshal. (ECF No. 3.) The court also issued a scheduling order, 

which set various deadlines in the case. (ECF No. 4.) In particular, the scheduling order required 

plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand within 45 days from being served 

with a copy of the administrative record. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The court also ordered the parties to 

complete and file the “Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment” form within 90 days, 

indicating whether the parties consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct all 

proceedings and enter judgment in the case. (ECF No. 4-1.) The court’s October 24, 2013 

scheduling order expressly stated that failure to adhere to scheduling deadlines “may result in 

Case 2:13-cv-02187-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

sanctions, including dismissal. L.R. 110. Plaintiff has an affirmative duty to prosecute this 

action, and failure to do so may result in a dismissal for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). Requests to modify this order must be made by written motion.” (ECF No. 4 at 3-4.) 

Subsequently, on October 29, 2013, plaintiff filed a document styled as a “First Amended 

Complaint,” to which plaintiff attached a number of additional medical records he claims were 

not before the Administrative Law Judge during the administrative hearing on plaintiff’s 

application. (ECF No. 7.) On February 18, 2014, the Commissioner filed an answer and lodged 

the administrative transcript. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) Copies of these filings were served on plaintiff 

via mail at his address of record. (ECF No. 15-1.) On March 5, 2014, plaintiff filed another 

document styled as an “Answer to Defendant’s Answer,” wherein plaintiff requests that the court 

consider additional medical records “not included in defendant’s answer.” (ECF No. 16.) On 

August 5, 2014, plaintiff made his most recent filing, a document styled as plaintiff’s “Second 

Amended Complaint,” which appears to include even more records plaintiff claims were not 

considered during administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 18.)

To date, the court’s records show that plaintiff has failed to file a motion for summary 

judgment and/or remand, and has failed to complete and file the “Consent to Assignment or 

Request for Reassignment” form, in accordance with the court’s orders. While the court could 

construe plaintiff’s “Second Amended Complaint” as a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff

did not file this document with the court until more than 45 days from being served with the with 

a copy of the administrative record, in violation of the court’s October 24, 2013 scheduling order. 

Furthermore, it appears that plaintiff only seeks to have the court consider new evidence outside 

of the administrative record, which would be more appropriately characterized as a request to the 

Commissioner for voluntary remand.

1

 Nevertheless, although plaintiff’s case is subject to 

dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the court’s orders, the court finds it 

appropriate, particularly in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, to provide plaintiff with an additional 

 

1

Plaintiff also has not complied with the procedure and deadlines for a request for voluntary 

remand, which were outlined in the court’s October 24, 2013 scheduling order. (See ECF No. 4 

at 2.)

Case 2:13-cv-02187-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand. Accordingly, within 30 days 

from the date of this order, plaintiff shall either: 

(a) File a motion for summary judgment and/or remand, outlining all his arguments, based on the 

evidence in the administrative record, why the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits was 

erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole;

OR

(b) If plaintiff has new evidence outside the administrative record, plaintiff may submit copies of 

the new evidence with a written request for voluntary remand to the Commissioner’s counsel, 

Annabelle J. Yang, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, 160 Spear 

Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105. Plaintiff shall also file a copy of the request for 

voluntary remand with the court, but shall not file copies of the new evidence itself with the court. 

Within 30 days from the date of service with the request for voluntary remand and new evidence, 

the Commissioner shall notify plaintiff and the court whether or not the case will be voluntarily 

remanded. If the Commissioner declines to voluntarily remand the case, plaintiff shall file a 

motion for summary judgment and/or remand with this court within 30 days from notification by 

the Commissioner that voluntary remand was declined.

The Commissioner’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, if any, shall 

be filed within 30 days from service of plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, shall be 

filed within 21 days from service of defendant’s opposition. The court anticipates deciding the 

motions on the papers and will not schedule a hearing or oral argument, unless a party specifically 

requests oral argument or the court otherwise deems it necessary.

For specific requirements regarding what a motion for summary judgment brief should 

contain, the parties shall consult paragraph 6 of the court’s initial October 24, 2013 scheduling 

order. (ECF No. 4.) However, the parties are advised that the scheduling deadlines set in this 

order will trump any different or inconsistent deadlines set in the initial scheduling order. 

Because this case has already been significantly delayed, the parties shall strictly adhere to the 

above scheduling deadlines and are cautioned that the court will be disinclined to allow any 

further significant extensions of deadlines. Although the court has sympathy for the difficulties 

Case 2:13-cv-02187-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

that a pro se litigant faces in prosecuting an action in federal court, and liberally construes a pro 

se litigant’s pleadings, plaintiff will be required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court’s Local Rules, and the court’s orders. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of 

appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or that a default judgment be entered, as applicable.

Additionally, the court notes that plaintiff has submitted certain documentary evidence

through multiple filings in this case and has stated that he is seeking to have the court consider 

these additional records. (ECF Nos. 7, 12, 16, 18.) Plaintiff is cautioned that the court, in 

reviewing final decisions by the Commissioner, is generally constrained to review only evidence 

that appears in the administrative record. If plaintiff determines that he has additional relevant 

and material evidence that does not appear in the administrative record, that evidence should be 

submitted to the Commissioner along with a written request for a voluntary remand, as discussed 

above, and not filed with the court. Accordingly, the court will disregard the additional evidence 

submitted as part of plaintiff’s filings.

Finally, the court observes that plaintiff has not addressed the issue of whether or not 

plaintiff is willing to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all further 

proceedings, including the entry of a final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Clerk is 

directed to promptly send plaintiff another copy of the “Consent to Assignment or Request for 

Reassignment” form, which plaintiff shall complete and file with the court within 30 days.

Accordingly, in light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall either: 

(a) File a motion for summary judgment and/or remand, outlining all her 

arguments, based on the evidence in the administrative record, why the Commissioner’s 

decision to deny benefits was erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence in the 

record as a whole;

OR

(b) If plaintiff has new evidence outside the administrative record, plaintiff may 

submit copies of the new evidence with a written request for voluntary remand to the 

Case 2:13-cv-02187-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Commissioner’s counsel, Annabelle J. Yang, Social Security Administration, Office of the 

General Counsel, 160 Spear Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105. Plaintiff shall 

also file a copy of the request for voluntary remand with the court, but shall not file copies 

of the new evidence itself with the court. Within 30 days from the date of service with the 

request for voluntary remand and new evidence, the Commissioner shall notify plaintiff 

and the court whether or not the case will be voluntarily remanded. If the Commissioner 

declines to voluntarily remand the case, plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment 

and/or remand with this court within 30 days from notification by the Commissioner that 

voluntary remand was declined.

2. The Commissioner’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, if any, 

shall be filed within 30 days from service of plaintiff’s motion. 

3. Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, shall be filed within 21 days from service of the 

Commissioner’s opposition.

4. The evidence submitted along with plaintiff’s filings at ECF Nos. 7, 12, 16, and 18 are 

DISREGARDED.

5. The Clerk of Court shall serve on plaintiff, along with this order, a copy of the initial 

October 24, 2013, scheduling order and a blank “Consent to Assignment or Request for 

Reassignment” form. Plaintiff shall file a completed copy of that form with the court within 30 

days of this order.

6. Failure to abide by these deadlines, or failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, or any court orders, may result in the imposition of 

appropriate sanctions, including dismissal of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b) or default judgment, as applicable.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 8, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-02187-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of 5