Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01768/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01768-0/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 (DIWC)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MOHAMMAD SARWAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1768 PVT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

FOR REHEARING

On December 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.1 Defendant opposed

the motion. Based on the briefs and arguments presented and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than February 28, 2006, Defendant shall file a

supplemental brief showing cause, if any, why this case should not be remanded for rehearing. No

later than March 15, 2006, Plaintiff shall file a response.

It appears from the transcript of the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

that the ALJ failed to properly advise Plaintiff of his right to legal representation, and provide him

with sufficient information to enable him to intelligently decide whether to retain counsel or proceed

Case 5:05-cv-01768-PVT Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

See, e.g., Benson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 2004 WL

3237348, *3 (E.D.Tex. 2004) (in context of Social Security appeal, finding sua sponte action was

warranted where error was obvious, blatant and prejudicial).

ORDER, page 2

pro se. See, e.g., Thompson v. Sullivan, 933 F.2d 581, 584-85 (7th Cir. 1991). Because the court is

raising this issue sua sponte,

2

 the court finds it appropriate to give the parties an additional

opportunity to brief this issue.

Dated: 1/31/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01768-PVT Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 2