Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02434/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02434-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

DILBAR SRAI,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2434-KJN

ORDER

The administrative transcript in this social security case was filed on April 26, 2016, and 

served on plaintiff by mail that same day. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) 

On May 13, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s request for a hearing without prejudice and, 

in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, explained in some detail the scheduling order and briefing 

procedure related to a social security appeal. (ECF No. 17.) The court noted, inter alia, that 

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

with the administrative transcript. (Id.) Because plaintiff was served by mail on April 26, 2016, 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was due on June 13, 2016, allowing three additional 

days for service by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Although that deadline has now passed, no 

motion for summary judgment was filed. Nevertheless, on June 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a

statement indicating that he has been unable to obtain counsel, does not understand the scheduling 

Case 2:15-cv-02434-KJN Document 19 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 3
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

order, and that he requests a hearing before a judge to explain his case and present his documents. 

(ECF No. 18.)

As the court previously explained, the court does not ordinarily entertain oral argument in 

social security appeals, unless the court has specific questions upon review of the parties’ written 

briefs. Even if a hearing were conducted, the court would not be able to answer plaintiff’s legal 

questions or provide plaintiff with any legal advice. Therefore, the court declines to schedule a 

hearing at this juncture.

The court’s May 13, 2016 order already outlines the written briefing procedure in simple, 

straightforward language, and the court is unable to explain it further without venturing into the 

improper territory of providing legal advice. To the extent that plaintiff is confused by the term 

“motion for summary judgment,” plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is simply a written 

brief that outlines all of plaintiff’s factual and legal arguments for why he believes that the 

Commissioner’s final decision was incorrect. Plaintiff may also attach additional documents 

along with his brief, but plaintiff is cautioned that the court may be limited by applicable law in 

its ability to consider documents outside of the official administrative transcript.

Even though the deadline for filing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has already 

passed, the court finds it appropriate to provide plaintiff with an extension of time, especially in 

light of plaintiff’s pro se status. However, plaintiff is cautioned that the court does not intend to 

grant any further extensions of time absent extraordinary circumstances. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second request for a hearing is DENIED without prejudice.

2. No later than July 15, 2016, plaintiff shall file his motion for summary judgment.

3. The Commissioner shall file its opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

and cross-motion for summary judgment within 30 days of being served with 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. To the extent that plaintiff elects to present 

additional documents not in the administrative transcript for the court’s consideration, 

the Commissioner’s briefing shall specifically address the propriety of considering 

such documents and their impact, if any, on the case.

Case 2:15-cv-02434-KJN Document 19 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Plaintiff may, but need not, file a reply brief within 21 days of being served with the 

Commissioner’s opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment.

5. Thereafter, the case will be submitted for decision on the record and written briefing. 

If the court determines that oral argument is necessary, the parties will be notified.

6. Failure to comply with this modified briefing schedule will result in the imposition of 

sanctions, including potential dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 20, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02434-KJN Document 19 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 3