Billy J. Stafford v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 21, 20251:25-cv-00835California991 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiff Billy J. Stafford proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this social security case 19 filed on July 10, 2025. (ECF Nos. 1, 3). The Court issued a scheduling order on July 11, 2025, 20 which required Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment within 30 days after service of the 21 administrative record. (ECF No. 5). This order warned the parties as follows: “Violations of this order or of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules may result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110.”1 (Id. at 3). Defendant filed the administrative record, (ECF No. 4), and then its proof of service by mail of the administrative record on Plaintiff on September 4, 2025 (ECF No. 10).

1 Local Rule 110 states as follows: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Because Plaintiff has failed to timely file a motion for summary judgment, the Court will recommend dismissal without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.