Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02668/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02668-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Daniel Rodriguez
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant

 /

No. C 09-2668 MMC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION”

FILED APRIL 7, 2010; DECLINING TO

DISCHARGE ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

In this action, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks judicial review of a decision of the

Social Security Administration. By order filed January 28, 2010, plaintiff was directed to file

a motion for summary judgment no later than March 12, 2010. Because plaintiff had not

filed a motion for summary judgment as of March 12, 2010, the Court, by order filed April 1,

2010, directed plaintiff to show cause, no later than April 23, 2010, why the above-titled

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the April 1, 2010 order, the Court

stated that “[t]o show good cause, plaintiff must file his motion for summary judgment, along

with a declaration explaining why such motion was not filed within the time required by the

Court’s prior orders.” (See April 1, 2010 Order at 1:28 - 2:3.)

On April 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion,” in which plaintiff states he

was unable to file a motion for summary judgment within the time required by the Court’s

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 30 Filed 04/09/10 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

prior orders because he was in custody.

Plaintiff’s explanation is sufficient to explain why he did not file a motion for summary 

judgment on or before March 12, 2010. Plaintiff has not, however, filed a motion for

summary judgment, and, consequently, the Court declines to discharge the April 1, 2010

order to show cause.

Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than April 23, 2010, his motion for

summary judgment. As was explained in the Court’s orders of January 28, 2010 and

February 25, 2010, plaintiff, in his motion for summary judgment, shall set forth all

arguments in support of his position that the administrative law judge’s decision of February

23, 2007 is erroneous. In particular, plaintiff must identify in his motion for summary

judgment what finding or findings included in the decision of February 23, 2007 are

erroneous, and set forth his argument as to why any such finding is erroneous.

If plaintiff fails to file a motion for summary judgment on or before April 23, 2010, the

Court will dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 30 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2