Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Paula Orozco Montoya, representing herself and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this action on July 10, 2026, in the Eastern District of California, seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for benefits. The Commissioner timely filed the administrative record on the court's docket on September 3, 2026. The court noted, however, that nothing indicated the Commissioner had conventionally served the record on Plaintiff as Local Rule 135(b) and (c) requires.
On October 9, 2026, the court ordered the Commissioner to file, by October 23, 2026, a proof of service showing service of the administrative record on Plaintiff under the appropriate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Commissioner filed no proof of service by that date, and none had been filed as of October 27, 2026. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to extend her time to file an opening brief, citing the failure to serve the record. The order also substitutes Frank Bisignano, the current Commissioner, as defendant, citing 42 U.S.C. section 405(g) and 20 C.F.R. section 422.210(d).
The Court’s Holding
This is a show-cause order, not a sanctions ruling. Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto did not find that sanctions are warranted, imposed none, and did not address the merits of Plaintiff's challenge to the benefits denial. The court recited that Local Rule 110 makes failure to comply with the rules or any court order potential grounds for sanctions within the court's inherent power, and that the court may exercise its inherent power to control its docket by imposing sanctions where appropriate, citing Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
The court ordered the Commissioner, by October 30, 2026, either to file a written response showing cause why sanctions should not issue for failing to comply with the October 9 order, or to file a proof of service of the administrative record on Plaintiff in accordance with the appropriate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, citing Local Rule 135(b) and (c). The order warns that failure to comply may be grounds for sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause the non-compliance.
In a footnote, the court advised Plaintiff that under the scheduling order her opening brief is not due until 30 days after service of the administrative record, and that because she appears not to have been served, that period has not yet begun. The order does not separately rule on her motion to extend time.
Key Takeaways
- Filing the administrative record on the court's docket is not the same as serving it; the court noted nothing showed the Commissioner had conventionally served Plaintiff as Local Rule 135(b) and (c) requires.
- The order is only a show-cause directive; the court has made no finding that sanctions are warranted and has imposed none.
- The Commissioner has until October 30, 2026, to file either a proof of service or a written response explaining why sanctions should not issue.
- Under the scheduling order in this case, Plaintiff's opening-brief deadline runs from service of the administrative record, so the period has not begun while service remains outstanding.
- The court identified Local Rule 110 and its inherent power as the basis for possible sanctions, and warned that they could reach counsel as well as parties.
Why It Matters
This order is a routine case-management step in a Social Security review action brought by a self-represented litigant, but it illustrates how the Eastern District of California enforces its own deadlines. The court treated service of the administrative record on the claimant as a distinct obligation from docketing it, and it responded to a missed deadline with a short-fuse show-cause order rather than immediate sanctions, giving the Commissioner a choice between curing the omission and explaining it.
Much remains open. The Commissioner's response is not part of this record, the court has not decided whether any sanction is appropriate, and Plaintiff's motion to extend time and the merits of her benefits challenge are unresolved. The order is an unreported ruling by a magistrate judge in a single case, so it carries little precedential weight beyond illustrating local practice.