IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 22, 2008
CARLYN RYLAND, PLAINTIFF,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On October 4, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and issued a scheduling order. The scheduling order provides that plaintiff can prosecute this action in one of two ways: (1) by filing a motion for summary judgment and/or remand within 45 days of the date of service of the certified administrative record by defendant; or (2) submitting to defendant a request for voluntary remand along with any new evidence. A review of the docket reflects that the certified administrative record was served on or about February 26, 2008, and that, on April 16, 2008, plaintiff submitted a request for voluntary remand to defendant.
Pursuant to the scheduling order, once a request for voluntary remand is submitted, defendant is required to inform plaintiff within 30 days whether the case will be voluntarily remanded. Within 45 days of notification of defendant's decision to decline voluntary remand, plaintiff is required to file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand. In this case, nothing in compliance with the scheduling order has been filed since April 16, 2008, when plaintiff filed a notice that she submitted a request for voluntary remand to defendant. Specifically, the parties have not filed a stipulation for voluntary remand and plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment and/or remand.
On July 18, 2008, the court directed plaintiff to show cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Apparently in response to that order, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Certificate of Service by Mail" indicating that she has served defendant with a motion for summary judgment on August 15, 2008. Plaintiff is advised, however, that she must also file the motion with the court. A review of the court's docket reflects that, as of August 20, 2008, plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff will be granted an extension of time of 30 days from the date of this order to show cause why this action should not dismissed for lack of prosecution. The filing of a stipulation for voluntary remand or a motion for summary judgment and/or remand within the time specified will constitute an adequate response to this order to show cause. Plaintiff is again warned that failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.