Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04377/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04377-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
John F. Patterson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN F PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v

JO ANNE B BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security

Defendant.

 /

No C 05-4377 VRW

 ORDER

On October 25, 2005, plaintiff John F Patterson, acting

pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review of the final

determination of the decision of the Appeals Council denying his

application for social security benefits. On the same date, the

“Procedural Order for Social Security Actions” of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California was filed in

the court’s file for this action and served on plaintiff. Doc # 2.

That order sets forth five procedural steps pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 16-5, below. Of relevance here, the second such step is that

plaintiff is required to serve and file a motion for summary

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 12 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

judgment or for remand within thirty (30) days of service of

defendant’s answer. 

On November 10, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered service

of the complaint on the defendant. Summons was returned executed. 

Doc # 8, 9, 10. On May 4, 2006, the defendant commissioner filed

her answer. Doc # 11. Plaintiff thereafter failed to file his

motion for summary judgment as required by the court’s Procedural

Order and Local Rule 16-5, below.

Civil Local Rule 16-5, which governs procedure in actions

for review on an administrative record and provides in part:

Within 30 days of receipt of defendant’s answer,

plaintiff must file a motion for summary judgment

pursuant to Civil LR 7-2 and FRCP 56. Defendant

must serve and file any opposition or counter-motion

within 30 days of service of plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff may serve and file a reply within 14 days

after service of defendant’s opposition or countermotion.

Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for summary judgment

violates both the court’s Procedural Order and Civil Local Rule 16-5

and also may warrant dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to

FRCP 41(b). “Plaintiff should be aware that although he is * * *

representing himself in this action, he is nevertheless obligated to

follow the same rules as represented parties.” See King v Atiyeh,

814 F2d 565, 567 (9th Cir 1987). Lack of knowledge of the

applicable rules and procedures is no excuse for failure to comply

with those rules. See Swimmer v IRS, 811 F2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir

1987). 

\\

\\

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 12 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

3

Accordingly, the court now ORDERS plaintiff to file his

motion for summary judgment on or before September 29, 2006. Should

plaintiff fail to respond to this order in a timely fashion, the

matter will be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). 

The clerk is directed to serve on plaintiff a copy of the court’s

Handbook for Litigants without a Lawyer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04377-VRW Document 12 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3