Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00309-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Anthony Jerome Laws
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JEROME LAWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB (SS)

ORDER ON MOTION TO REQUEST COURT 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

(Doc. 25)

Plaintiff Anthony Jerome Laws (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of an administrative 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits 

under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1).

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he states that it has been over 90 

days since he filed his option reply brief (Doc. 24) and the Court has not yet ruled on the 

pending motion for summary judgment and, therefore, the Court is violating Plaintiff’s rights. 

See (Doc. 25). He cites to Article VI, Section 19 of the “United States Constitution” for the 

proposition that Section 19 sets a deadline for judicial decisions to be made 90 days after the 

matter is submitted for decision, as well as Government Code section 68210 for the proposition 

that judges must issue an affidavit that no cause before the judge remains pending for 90 days 

after it has been submitted for decision. Id. at 2.

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 26 Filed 01/17/25 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

The Court notes that the United States Constitution does not have a “Section 19” under 

Article VI and that the Plaintiff likely intended to cite the same provision in the California 

Constitution, which does have such a section and sets such a 90-day deadline in regards to 

withholding of salaries of judges of courts of record if a submitted matter remains pending for 

90 days or more. Cal. Const., art. 6, § 19. Similarly, the “Government Code” section Plaintiff 

cites exists only in the California Government Code. Cal. Gov. Code § 68210. As this matter is 

in pending in a United States District Court, the aforementioned provisions of California 

constitutional and statutory law are inapplicable here.

The undersigned was appointed to the bench on October 6, 2022, on which date he was 

assigned a docket consisting of approximately 442 pending cases; as of today’s date, that docket 

includes more than 80 pending Social Security cases in various stages of litigation, including 

dozens of fully briefed dispositive motions. Despite his earnest efforts to resolve this 

extraordinary backlog, the undersigned regrets Plaintiff’s motion has not yet been adjudicated. 

The Eastern District of California is one of the busiest courts in the country and remains under a 

judicial emergency, and though highly unfortunate, significant delays are inevitable.

The parties are advised that Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment will be 

resolved as soon as is practicable given the Court’s tremendous workload.

Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for response to the 

complaint (Doc. 25), construed as a motion for status, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 26 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2