Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00020-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Ryan Craig Stevens
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the Court’s Error, filed in 

triplicate on September 25, 2014; November 3, 2014, and March 9, 2015. (Docs. 39, 40, 41). 

Judgment was entered in this case on March 29, 2013, yet Plaintiff Ryan Stevens continues to file 

objections and motions for reconsideration of various orders of this Court. (Docs. 39, 40, 41). 

Plaintiff’s previous motions for reconsideration were denied (Docs. 33, 35, 38), and the Court warned 

Plaintiff that his case is closed and any subsequent attempts at reconsideration would be denied and 

summarily stricken from the record. (Doc. 38). Nonetheless, the Court is particularly sensitive to the 

challenges faced by pro se litigants unfamiliar with the judicial process (See Balistreri v. Pacifica 

Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988), and in an effort to fully and finally respond to 

Plaintiff’s concerns, the Court will address the issues outlined in Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Error 

one last time.

RYAN CRAIG STEVENS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0020- BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

DETERMINE ERROR AND DIRECTING THE 

CLERK TO RETURN PLAINTIFF’S FUTURE 

SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT DOCKETING

(Docs. 39, 40, 41) 

Case 1:12-cv-00020-BAM Document 42 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s Motion identifies seven issues, but the Court categorizes Plaintiff’s Motion as 

comprising two primary complaints: (1) the Court erred in issuing a decision denying Plaintiff’s social 

security appeal without requiring Plaintiff to file a reply brief; and (2) the Court improperly considered 

the Commissioner’s untimely opposition brief. (Doc. 38). 

Plaintiff asks the Court to explain why it failed to issue an “Order to Show Cause” requiring 

Plaintiff to file a “Reply Brief” before resolving the merits of Plaintiff’s social security appeal. (Docs. 

39, 40, 41). Plaintiff argues that by addressing Plaintiff’s social security appeal without considering “a 

full briefing,” the Court failed its duty to construe Plaintiff’s pleading liberally. 

To the contrary, a reply brief by the moving party is optional. Plaintiff was served with the 

“Pro Se Informational Order” on January 12, 2012, which explicitly informed Plaintiff that while 

Plaintiff “must” file an opening brief; Plaintiff “may file a reply brief, but is not required to do so.” 

Indeed, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause for Plaintiff to file his opening brief when Plaintiff 

failed to follow the Court’s order. Local Rule 183 (pro se litigants are required to know the Local 

Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Plaintiff confuses a reply brief, which is optional, with 

the requirement for Plaintiff to file an opening brief. (Doc. 8 at 6). Plaintiff was not required to file a 

reply brief, and therefore, the Court did not require Plaintiff to do so. The Court addressed the merits 

of Plaintiff’s social security appeal based on a full and complete record. This Court is vastly familiar 

with social security issues, and indeed, the Court liberally construed the arguments raised by Plaintiff

as a pro se plaintiff.

Plaintiff also argues that the Court failed to acknowledge that the Commissioner’s opposition

brief was untimely filed and served. This is an objection Plaintiff made in a prior motion, and the 

Court has already addressed the objection. Once again, while the Commissioner’s brief was timely 

filed on February 7, 2013, the Commissioner’s brief was postmarked on February 8, 2013. To the 

extent that the Commissioner’s brief was untimely served, the Court has excused the delay. Indeed, 

the Court excused the one day delay, just as the Court excused Plaintiff’s delay in filing his opening 

brief, three months after the deadline. 

The Court has addressed the issues raised in Plaintiff’s recent filings on multiple occasions,

and Plaintiff has continued to file motions requesting that the Court reconsider its prior rulings. Such 

Case 1:12-cv-00020-BAM Document 42 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

requests are improper. Local Rule 230(j). Accordingly, based on the Court’s prior instructions and

warnings, Plaintiff’s duplicative Motion to Determine the Court’s Error is HEREBY DENIED AS 

MOOT. (Docs. 39, 40, 41). 

Plaintiff is further advised that this Order constitutes the Court’s final warning to Plaintiff. 

Any future improper motions will be returned to Plaintiff without filing on the Court’s docket. The 

Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff to his address of record, without docketing, any 

improper documents submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s social security appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00020-BAM Document 42 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 3