From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swortfiguer v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 7, 2011
1:10-cv-01835 GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2011)

Opinion

1:10-cv-01835 GSA

09-07-2011

CLIFFORD ALAN SWORTFIGUER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On October 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed the present action in this Court. Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits. On October 5, 2010, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. (Doc. 5). The Scheduling Order states that within 120 days after service, Defendant shall file and serve a copy of the administrative record which shall be deemed an answer to the complaint. The Order also provides that within 30 days after service of the administrative record, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant a letter brief outlining why remand is warranted which Defendant shall respond to within 35 days. Thereafter, if Defendant does not stipulate to remand, within 30 days of Defendant's response, Plaintiff must file and serve an opening brief.

On or about April 29, 2011, Defendant lodged the administrative record. On June 26, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the date that Plaintiff's confidential letter was due. (Doc. 15.) After noting that there was a typographical error in the stipulation, the Court issued an order setting new deadlines. This order informed the parties that Plaintiff's opening brief must be filed no later than September 1, 2011. (Doc. 16).

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file the opening brief by the required date. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the court's June 25, 2011, order. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause WITHIN twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff desires more time to file the brief, Plaintiff should so state in the response.

Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Swortfiguer v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 7, 2011
1:10-cv-01835 GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Swortfiguer v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:CLIFFORD ALAN SWORTFIGUER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner…

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

Date published: Sep 7, 2011

Citations

1:10-cv-01835 GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2011)