Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01754/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01754-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosemary Cervantes
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

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

 Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, as Commissioner of the Social Security 1

Administration. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEMARY CERVANTES, ) No. 06-cv-1754 TAG

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

) DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

) FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) (Doc. 25) 1

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

On November 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed the present action for judicial review of the denial of

Social Security benefits. (Doc. 2). On December 6, 2006, the Court issued a Scheduling Order

(“Order”). (Doc. 6). The Order states that within 120 days after service, Defendant shall file and

serve a copy of the administrative record which shall be deemed an answer to the complaint. The

Order also provides that within 30 days after service of the administrative record, Plaintiff shall serve

on Defendant a letter brief outlining why remand is warranted which Defendant shall respond to

within 35 days. Thereafter, if Defendant does not stipulate to remand, within 30 days of Defendant’s

response, Plaintiff must file and serve an opening brief. (Id.). 

On April 10, 2007, Defendant lodged the administrative record. (Doc. 12). Pursuant to the 

Order, Plaintiff was required to file her opening brief on or before July 16, 2007. (Doc. 6). On

Case 1:06-cv-01754-TAG-TAG Document 26 Filed 01/18/08 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

October 1, 2007, the undersigned issued an order to show cause directing Plaintiff either to explain

why she had failed to timely file her opening brief or to file an opening brief. (Doc. 15). For good

cause shown, this Court discharged the order to show cause and granted Plaintiff until October 15,

2007, to file her opening brief. (Doc. 19). 

On November 8, 2007, this Court granted a motion to withdraw as attorneys of record

brought by filed by Plaintiff’s attorneys and directed the attorneys to execute service of the order on

Plaintiff, stating that, when the attorneys filed proof of service with the Court, the order would

become effective. (Docs. 21, 22). In addition, in the November 8 order, the undersigned, sua sponte,

granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days – until December 14, 2007 – to file her opening brief. 

(Doc. 22). To date, Plaintiff has not filed her opening brief, nor have her attorneys filed proof of

service of the order granting their motion to withdraw, and, accordingly, they remain Plaintiff’s

attorneys of record. (See Dkt. Sheet). 

On January 11, 2008, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be

issued for failing to comply with the Court’s orders, i.e., why the case should not be dismissed for

failing to file an opening brief as ordered by the Court. (Doc. 24). On January 11, 2008, Plaintiff

filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause, requesting an extension of time to February 22, 2008,

to file an opening brief.

Plaintiff has failed to file an opening brief as ordered on at least two occasions in this action,

which have resulted in the issuance of two orders to show cause. Plaintiff has also been granted at

least two extensions of time to file an opening brief in this action, and to date, Plaintiff has not filed

an opening brief. The Court will grant Plaintiff one last extension of time to an opening brief. No

further extensions of time will be granted. 

ORDERS

The Court makes the following orders: 

1. Plaintiff Rosemary Cervantes shall have to and including February 1, 2008 to file an

opening brief. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01754-TAG-TAG Document 26 Filed 01/18/08 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

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to February 22, 2008 to file an opening brief is

DENIED. 

PLAINTIFF IS FOREWARNED THAT HER FAILURE TO FILE AN OPENING

BRIEF BY FEBRUARY 1, 2008 WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01754-TAG-TAG Document 26 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3