Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02586/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02586-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Stephanie Hoover
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE HOOVER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2586 DAD PS

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

On May 5, 2010, the court ordered the pro se plaintiff to show cause in writing

why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff has filed a timely

response to the order, together with a document titled “Motion for Voluntary Remand.” Plaintiff

asserts that she has been dealing with a family emergency since March and “was unaware that the

required time had expired.” She states that she would like the case to continue.

On September 18, 2009, the court served on plaintiff a document titled

“Scheduling Order.” The Scheduling Order provides that

[p]laintiff may prosecute this action in either of the following two

ways:

a. Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment

and/or remand, within 45 days from being served with a copy of

the administrative record; or

Case 2:09-cv-02586-DAD Document 19 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

b. If plaintiff has new evidence outside the evidentiary

record, plaintiff may submit the new evidence with a request for

voluntary remand to the Office of the General Counsel – Region

IX, Social Security Administration, 333 Market Street, Suite 1500,

San Francisco, California 94105. A copy of the request for

voluntary remand must be served on the defendant. Within 30

days from the later of the date new evidence is served or the date

the answer is filed, defendant shall notify the plaintiff whether or

not the case will be voluntarily remanded. Within 45 days from

notification that remand is declined, plaintiff shall file a motion for

summary judgment and/or remand in this court.

(Scheduling Order filed Sept. 18, 2009 (Doc. No. 4), at 2-3.) Plaintiff was cautioned that 

[t]he court will not contact counsel or the parties to remind them of

these scheduling deadlines. Failure to adhere to the schedule

outlined above may result in sanctions, including dismissal. . . . 

Plaintiff has an affirmative duty to prosecute this action, and

failure to do so may result in a dismissal with prejudice for lack of

prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

(Id.)

Plaintiff has been on notice since September 2009 that it is her duty to prosecute

this action and that she alone is responsible for calculating her scheduling deadlines and meeting

them. If plaintiff had new evidence, i.e., “evidence outside the evidentiary record,” she could

have sent a request for voluntary remand to the Office of the General Counsel in San Francisco

immediately after defendant filed a notice of appearance on December 21, 2009. At the latest,

plaintiff should have sent any request for voluntary remand to the Office of the General Counsel

within 45 days after defendant’s answer was filed on March 3, 2010. If plaintiff did not have any

new evidence, she was obligated to file her motion for summary judgment within 45 days after

she was served with a copy of the administrative record. The record reflects that defendant

served a paper copy of the administrative record upon plaintiff by mail on March 3, 2010. Thus,

plaintiff’s 45-day period for filing a motion for summary judgment and/or remand began to run

on March 4, 2010, and ended on April 17, 2010.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s “Motion for Voluntary Remand” and finds that

it does not meet the requirements of either option set forth in the Scheduling Order. Voluntary

Case 2:09-cv-02586-DAD Document 19 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

remand may be requested from the Office of the General Counsel, and it appears that plaintiff

served a copy of her motion on that office, but voluntary remand cannot be obtained by motion

addressed to the court. Accordingly, the motion filed with the court will be denied because it

seeks relief not available from the court.

To the extent that plaintiff intended to submit a request for voluntary remand to

the Office of the General Counsel, the court notes that the request does not appear to be properly

based on “new evidence outside the evidentiary record.” Plaintiff’s request is supported in part

by non-evidentiary information from internet sources and in part by medical documentation that

may be part of the administrative record. The dates of all but two of the medical documents

attached to plaintiff’s request for voluntary remand pre-date February 11, 2009, the date on

which the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision in plaintiff’s case. Although the

document presented as “Attachment 13” to plaintiff’s request is dated March 6, 2009, that

document was submitted to the Appeals Council and is part of the evidentiary record as Exhibit

B21F. The one-page radiology report presented as “Attachment 06” to plaintiff’s request appears

to be new evidence because the report is dated October 7, 2009, and the Appeals Counsel had

issued its decision on May 22, 2009. If the radiology report is plaintiff’s only new evidence,

voluntary remand is unlikely. Nonetheless, defendant will be directed to notify plaintiff within

30 days after this order is filed whether her case will be voluntarily remanded.

In the interests of justice, the court’s order to show cause will be discharged, and

the pro se plaintiff will be granted an additional 45 days from the date of this order in which to

file a proper motion for summary judgment and/or remand. The motion must comply with the

following requirements, which were previously set forth in the court’s Scheduling Order.

Briefs in support of a motion for summary judgment should

contain the following: (1) a plain description of plaintiff’s alleged

physical or emotional impairments, when plaintiff contends the

impairments became disabling, and how the impairments disable

plaintiff from work; (2) a summary of the administrative

proceedings before the Commissioner of Social Security; (3) a

summary of relevant medical evidence including an explanation of

Case 2:09-cv-02586-DAD Document 19 Filed 05/24/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

clinical and laboratory findings and the purpose and effect of

prescribed medication and therapy; (4) a summary of the relevant

testimony at the administrative hearing; (5) a recitation of the

Commissioner’s findings and conclusions relevant to plaintiff’s

claims; (6) a short, separate statement of each of plaintiff’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 (7) argument separately addressing each

claimed error. . . . Failure to organize the brief in this manner may

lead to sanctions, including striking of the motion . . . .

(Scheduling Order filed Sept. 18, 2009 (Doc. No. 4), at 2-3.)

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The court’s May 5, 2010 order to show cause (Doc. No. 16) is discharged.

2. Plaintiff’s May 18, 2010 motion for voluntary remand by the court (Doc. No.

18) is denied.

3. Defendant shall notify plaintiff within 30 days after this order is filed whether

the case will be voluntarily remanded.

4. Plaintiff shall file and serve a motion for summary judgment and/or remand

within 45 days after this order is filed. The motion must comply with all requirements set forth

in this order. Failure to timely file the required motion will result in dismissal of the action.

5. Defendant’s opposition or cross-motion to a timely filed motion for summary

judgment and/or remand shall be filed in accordance with the scheduling order issued on

September 18, 2009.

DATED: May 21, 2010.

DAD:kw

Ddad1/orders.socsec/hoover2586.osc.dsch.ext

Case 2:09-cv-02586-DAD Document 19 Filed 05/24/10 Page 4 of 4