Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02434/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02434-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Dilbar Srai
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DILBAR SRAI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-2434-KJN 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action on November 23, 2015, to 

seek judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. (ECF No. 1.) 

The administrative record in this matter was lodged with the court on April 26, 2016, and 

simultaneously served on plaintiff by mail. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) 

 Thereafter, on April 29, 2016, plaintiff requested that the court conduct a hearing in his 

case before it makes a decision. (ECF No. 14.) In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court 

briefly outlines the process by which this action is to be adjudicated. In actions seeking judicial 

review of final decisions by the Commissioner of Social Security, the court typically does not 

conduct hearings or entertain oral argument. Instead, the court’s scheduling order provides that 

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

with a copy of the administrative record. (ECF No. 4.) The Commissioner then files its 

Case 2:15-cv-02434-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

opposition to plaintiff’s motion and/or cross-motion for summary judgment within 30 days of 

being served with plaintiff’s motion. (Id.) Thereafter, plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a 

reply brief within 21 days of being served with defendant’s opposition and/or cross-motion. (Id.) 

If either party needs a reasonable extension of time to file a particular brief, it shall confer with 

the other party and prepare an appropriate stipulation and proposed order for an extension of time 

for the court’s consideration. The court is generally amenable to granting reasonable extensions 

of time, provided that the parties have been diligent and the request is made prior to the expiration 

of the applicable deadline. Upon the filing of the reply brief, or the expiration of the deadline to 

file a reply brief, the case is generally submitted for decision without oral argument on the record 

and written briefing. (Id.) 

 Consequently, although the court does not generally entertain oral argument, plaintiff will 

have an opportunity to submit all his arguments in writing, in accordance with the briefing 

schedule outlined in the court’s scheduling order, and as summarized above. (See ECF No. 4.) 

If, upon completion of the written briefing, plaintiff still believes that oral argument is necessary, 

he may renew his request at that time. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for a hearing (ECF No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice to its 

potential renewal at a later juncture. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that his motion for summary judgment and/or remand is due within 

45 days of being served with the administrative record. Failure to timely file that 

motion, or timely seek an extension of time to do so, may result in sanctions, including 

potential dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 13, 2016 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02434-KJN Document 17 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2