Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02480/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02480-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN L. SHELTON, No. CIV S-09-2480-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order, plaintiff is required to prosecute this action by either

seeking voluntary remand or filing a dispositive motion within 45 days from the date of service

of the administrative record by defendant. Pending before the court is the parties’ stipulated

motion for an extension of time (Doc. 18) for plaintiff to file a dispositive motion. 

Plaintiff previously obtained a stipulation extending the time from filing her

dispositive motion from April 26, 2010, to July 20, 2010. Plaintiff is now requesting an

additional 30 day extension. This stipulated request will be granted. However, counsel is

cautioned that further extensions of time are disfavored. By granting the current extension,

Case 2:09-cv-02480-CMK Document 19 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

counsel will have had over five months to prepare her dispositive motion, which even with

counsel’s impacted briefing schedule should be sufficient. 

Good cause appearing therefor, the request is granted. Additional requests for

extending the deadline further are discouraged. Plaintiff shall file a dispositive motion by 

August 20, 2010. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file a dispositive motion within the time

provided may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

court orders and rules. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 22, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02480-CMK Document 19 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 2