Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00599-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Garcia
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00599-AWI-SAB

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND REQUIRING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPENING BRIEF BY 

MAY 8, 2015

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Maria Garcia, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 

challenging the denial of Social Security benefits on April 24, 2014. On August 20, 2014, an 

informal order for pro se litigants was issued by the Court informing Plaintiff of the requirements 

to prosecute her action. The administrative record in this action was filed on December 1, 2014. 

Plaintiff’s opening brief in this action was due ninety five days after the administrative record 

was filed. Plaintiff did not file a timely opening brief; and on March 11, 2015, an order issued 

requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an untimely response to the order to show cause. 

 In the informational order, Plaintiff was advised that she must comply with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California (hereafter “Local Rule” or “L.R.”). (ECF No. 11 at 7.) Further, Plaintiff was advised of 

the requirements of her opening brief and that the failure to timely file an opening brief would 

Case 1:14-cv-00599-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/06/15 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

result in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 6.) 

A document is filed when it is delivered into the custody of the Clerk and accepted for 

inclusion into the official record. L.R. 101. Plaintiff was ordered to file a response to the order to 

show cause within fourteen days of March 11, 2015. The Federal Rules provide that when service is 

made by mail, the party receives an additional three days to the period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Plaintiff’s response was filed on April 1, 2015, twenty one days after the order was served. While 

Plaintiff’s response was untimely, the Court shall consider it in this instance since she is proceeding 

pro se. However, Plaintiff is admonished that she must comply with the Rules and the Court is 

not inclined to be lenient for further failures to comply.

Plaintiff states that it is taking her more time than she thought would be necessary to file 

her opening brief. Local Rule 144 provides that requests for extension of time must be sought as 

soon as the need for the extension becomes apparent. L.R. 144(d). Further, requests for 

extension of time must be brought prior to the required filing date of the document. Id. Plaintiff 

is advised that any future request for an extension of time must be filed prior to the due date, 

state the amount of time requested, and show good cause for the request. Requests for an 

extension of time that do not demonstrate good cause will be denied.

Finally, in her response Plaintiff states that it is taking longer than she expected to obtain 

medical records. In reviewing the denial of an application for Social Security benefits, this court

“reviews the Commissioner’s final decision for substantial evidence, and the Commissioner’s 

decision will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal 

error.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). In making this review, the Court 

considers the closed record, which means that generally neither party may put additional 

evidence before the District Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). 

This Court may only consider new evidence where it is material to the disability 

determination and Plaintiff has shown good cause for failing to present the evidence to the 

Administrative Law Judge earlier. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (2001). Evidence is 

material where it bears directly and substantially on the matter in dispute. Id. To demonstrate 

good cause a claimant must demonstrate that the new evidence was not available earlier. Id. at 

Case 1:14-cv-00599-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/06/15 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

463. “A claimant does not meet the good cause requirement by merely obtaining a more 

favorable report once his or her claim has been denied.” Id.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, filed March 11, 2015 is DISCHARGED; 

2. Plaintiff’s opening brief shall be filed on or before May 8, 2015; and 

3. The failure to file an opening brief in compliance with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00599-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3