Vazquez-Ocasio v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

At a July 9, 2025 conference, Plaintiff said she still wanted to file an amended complaint. The court extended her deadline to July 30, 2025, and set deadlines for a possible motion to dismiss and related briefing. The court warned that failing to make required filings on time could lead to dismissal for failure to move the case forward.

The court did not receive an amended complaint or a request for an extension. A mailed copy of the prior order was returned as undelivered. The courtroom deputy then emailed Plaintiff copies on July 23, July 25, and July 28, 2025, and left a voicemail on July 28 asking Plaintiff to confirm receipt. The opinion states that the deputy did not receive notices that the emails were undeliverable and had successfully communicated with Plaintiff at that email address on prior occasions. Plaintiff did not respond.

Court’s Action

The court retroactively extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint until September 8, 2025. It warned that failure to file the amended complaint by that date, or to request a reasonable extension, may lead to dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The court explained that a plaintiff has the ultimate responsibility for moving a case toward trial. It also stated that Rule 41(b) permits a federal district court to dismiss an action on its own initiative when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court rules or a court order. The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order.

Additional Information

The court advised Plaintiff about the City Bar Justice Center’s Legal Assistance Clinic, which may assist people representing themselves in civil cases. The court stated that the clinic is a private organization and is not part of the court. It also explained that any filings must still be submitted by the self-represented party through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.