From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Showers v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 29, 2016
No. 2:16-cv-0053 CKD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2:16-cv-0053 CKD

07-29-2016

DeANDRE SHOWERS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. The administrative transcript does not contain an itemized list of the exhibits. The "List of Exhibits" simply lumps all of the "medical evidence" and indicates such evidence is found at pages 336-680 of the administrative transcript. Similarly, the "disability related development and documentation" indicates this evidence can be found at pages 181-335. Compiling all the evidence in such a manner, without specific itemization of the records found therein, does not foster meaningful review. Such a practice is also contrary to the thousands of administrative transcripts heretofore submitted to this court. See, e.g., court transcript indices submitted in Smith v. SS, (E.D. Cal.), case no. 2:12-cv-2707 CKD; Jekov v. SS, (E.D. Cal.), case no. 2:12-cv-2768 CKD, DeSchryver v. SS, (E.D. Cal.), case no. 2:16-cv-146 TLN CKD. /////

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall, no later than August 26, 2016, file an amended court transcript index, specifically itemizing the records contained in the administrative transcript. Dated: July 29, 2016

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 showers0053.index


Summaries of

Showers v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 29, 2016
No. 2:16-cv-0053 CKD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2016)
Case details for

Showers v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:DeANDRE SHOWERS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 29, 2016

Citations

No. 2:16-cv-0053 CKD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2016)

Citing Cases

Keller v. Colvin

The distinction is significant because the step two harmless error doctrine is inapplicable to a…