Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00549/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00549-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Doua Vang
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUA VANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00549-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff Doua Vang filed this action challenging the final decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits. On 

April 14, 2015, 2015, the scheduling order issued which set forth the briefing schedule in this 

action. Pursuant to the April 14, 2015 scheduling order, Plaintiff was to serve a letter brief 

outlining the reasons that Plaintiff thinks that remand is appropriate within thirty days after 

service of the administrative record. (Scheduling Order ¶ 3, ECF No. 5.) The Commissioner 

then had thirty five days to serve a response to the letter brief. (Id. at ¶ 4.) “In the event [the 

Commissioner did] not agree to a remand, within thirty (30) days of service of respondent’s 

response, appellant shall file and serve an opening brief with the court and on respondent.” (Id.

at ¶ 6.) On October 27, 2015, the Court entered an order extending the time for Plaintiff to serve 

his confidential letter brief to November 25, 2015, and all other deadlines were modified 

Case 1:15-cv-00549-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/05/16 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

accordingly. (ECF No. 14.) 

Accordingly to the certificate of service filed by the Commissioner, Plaintiff was served 

with Defendant’s response to the letter brief on December 30, 2015. (ECF No. 16.) Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed by February 1, 2016. As of this date, Plaintiff has not 

filed an opening brief in compliance with the April 14, 2015 scheduling order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a written response to 

this order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within 

seven (7) days of the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in this 

action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00549-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2