Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05099/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05099-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy A. Berryhill
Defendant
Alan Brinker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN BRINKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-05099-SI 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL

EXTENSION OF TIME, RE-SETTING 

DEADLINES

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Plaintiff Alan Brinker, who is representing himself pro se in this Social Security appeal, has 

filed a request for an extension of time to file his motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 39. 

Although plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was originally due in January 2019, the Court 

has granted numerous requests for extensions of time to plaintiff. See Dkt. Nos. 28, 32, 36. In doing 

so, the court cautioned plaintiff that the extensions he sought were lengthy, and the Court would not 

be inclined to grant further extensions. 

Most recently, the Court set plaintiff’s deadline to file his motion for summary judgment for 

July 29, 2019, warning that missing this deadline would risk dismissal of the case for failure to 

prosecute. Dkt. No. 36 at 3. Rather than filing his motion, plaintiff filed a request for an eight-week

extension of time, citing medical issues that arose in the week before his brief was due. Dkt. No. 

39. Plaintiff states that he had an MRI done on his neck and he attaches related medical records, 

including a note from his doctor stating that plaintiff would be able to return to work with no 

restrictions on August 1, 2019. Plaintiff also states that on July 23, 2019, he went to the emergency 

room with an intestinal blockage. He states that he is being referred to a clinic for, as he understands 

it, “pre-surgery for the blockage problem[.]” Id. at 3. He states that recovery from the surgery will 

take six weeks, although it is not clear from his papers that he has in fact been scheduled for surgery 

Case 3:18-cv-05099-SI Document 42 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

or when the surgery is to occur.

While the Court is sorry for plaintiff’s troubles, when a plaintiff files a lawsuit in federal 

court, it is his responsibility to prosecute the case. It appears from the record that the Administrative 

Law Judge decision that plaintiff is challenging is one from March 2, 2015, over four years ago. 

Dkt. No. 21-1. This lawsuit has already been pending for nearly one year, and the Court still has no 

substantive motion before it on which to rule. It is time to resolve this case on its merits. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s request for an extension of his filing deadline, 

with the warning that this is the last extension the Court will grant. 

The deadlines in this case are now as follows: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

is due September 27, 2019. Defendant’s opposition and cross-motion is due October 25, 2019. 

Plaintiff’s optional reply brief is due November 8, 2019. 

If plaintiff does not file his motion for summary judgment by September 27, 2019, the 

Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05099-SI Document 42 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 2