Beatriz P. v. Dudek

Background

Beatriz P. filed a Social Security appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court’s procedural order required her to file and serve an opening brief within 30 days after the Commissioner filed an answer. The Commissioner filed the administrative record on May 19, 2025, making the opening brief due June 18, 2025.

After Beatriz P. did not file the brief, the court issued an earlier order to show cause on July 10, 2025. Beatriz P. responded on July 29, 2025, and requested more time. The court granted that request and set August 18, 2025, as the new deadline. She did not file the brief by that date and did not request another extension.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or fails to comply with court orders. The court found that the record showed both failures here. It stated that the failures were grounds for dismissing the case in its entirety if Beatriz P. did not provide a justification.

The court nevertheless exercised its discretion not to dismiss the case at that time. Instead, it issued this order to show cause, meaning Beatriz P. had to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed.

Ruling

Judge Peter H. Kang ordered Beatriz P. to file a written response by September 12, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed. She could satisfy the order instead by filing her opening brief by that date; a timely brief would automatically end the order to show cause without a separate response. The court warned that failing to comply could result in further consequences, including dismissal of the entire action under Rule 41(b). The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed, and it does not decide the merits of Beatriz P.’s Social Security appeal.