Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01786-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Daoheuang Khounesavatdy
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAOHEUANG KHOUNESAVATDY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social )

Security, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-001786-SMS

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE

A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF NO LATER

THAN FEBRUARY 29, 2008

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and with counsel

against the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff seeks judicial review

of a final decision of the Commissioner denying an application

for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI

of the Social Security Act (the Act). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the

Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this matter,

including ordering the entry of final judgment. Pending before

the Court is Plaintiff’s social security complaint.

The Court has reviewed the complaint, briefS, and record

filed in this action. 

Case 1:06-cv-01786-SMS Document 22 Filed 02/19/08 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

It appears that Plaintiff’s opening brief failed to comply

with this Court’s scheduling order, which issued on December 11,

2006, and which provided in Paragraph 11 that an opening or

responsive brief shall contain a short, separate statement of

each of appellant’s legal claims stated in terms of the

insufficiency of the evidence to support a particular finding of

fact or reliance upon an erroneous legal standard; and argument

separately addressing each claimed error, which must be supported

by citation to legal authority and explanation of the application

of such authority to the facts of the particular case. (Id. at ¶

11(e), (f).) Further, it states that all references to the record

and all assertions of fact must be accompanied by citations to

the record. (¶ 11.) 

With respect to his contention that the ALJ erred in

rejecting the opinion of treating Dr. Shubhakar, Plaintiff stated

in the opening brief only that he believed it was error, cited to

general legal principles and portions of the record, and then

stated that the opinion should have been adopted and “should have

been given more weight than that of the one-shot consultative,

Dr. Rios.” (Op. Brief pp. 6-8.) Plaintiff made no statement

concerning the insufficiency of the evidence, and he set forth no

legal argument concerning explanation of the authority to the

facts of this particular case. 

It was not until Plaintiff filed his reply brief that

Plaintiff articulated the legal argument that Dr. Rios’s opinion

was insubstantial because Dr. Rios did not consider x-rays of

January 2004 or August 2005. (Reply pp. 3-4.)

Because of Plaintiff’s defective presentation of his

Case 1:06-cv-01786-SMS Document 22 Filed 02/19/08 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

argument, the Court has been deprived of any input from Defendant

on this point and its relationship to the larger issues of the

ALJ’s treatment of the treating doctor’s opinion and the

substantiality of the evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusions.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that Defendant shall file a

supplemental brief no later than February 29, 2008, addressing

whether in light of the governing law, and particularly

considering Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9 Cir. 2007), the ALJ’s th

treatment of the opinion of Dr. Shubhakar was pursuant to correct

legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence; and

whether the opinion of Dr. Rios constituted substantial evidence

considering all the evidence, including but not limited to Dr.

Rios’s failure to mention and/or apparent failure to consider the

x-rays.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01786-SMS Document 22 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 3