M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-02757
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In M.R.Z. v. Commissioner, Judge Cisneros granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings until funding was restored or a continuing resolution enacted.
The stay affects M.R.Z. and the Commissioner of Social Security by pausing the case until Department of Justice funding is restored or a continuing resolution is enacted.
What happened
In M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff asked the court to pause pending deadlines because Department of Justice attorneys handling Social Security cases were unavailable during a lapse in federal funding. The parties had agreed to send the case back for further proceedings, but had not negotiated attorney-fee issues.
The plaintiff requested a stay of deadlines related to fees until Congress restored funding or enacted a continuing resolution, with later deadlines extended for the length of the funding lapse. The motion said the government could not effectively participate in the case while funding was unavailable.
The court granted the motion and stayed the matter until Congress restored appropriations to the Department of Justice or enacted a continuing resolution. The defendant must notify the court within three days after that occurs, and Judge Lisa J. Cisneros will then set a conference to discuss whether the schedule should be changed.
The detailed version
- M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 3:25-cv-02757
- Cisneros
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
M.R.Z. moved to stay the pending deadlines in this Social Security case. The motion stated that Department of Justice attorneys handling Social Security litigation were out of the office because of a lapse in federal appropriations. It also stated that the parties had stipulated to a remand but had not negotiated attorney-fee issues under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Reasoning
The motion relied on the court’s broad authority to pause proceedings as part of managing its docket. It argued that a stay was justified because the government essentially could not participate in the litigation until funding was restored. The motion also requested that deadlines later be extended in proportion to the length of the funding lapse.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted the plaintiff’s motion to stay. The matter is stayed until Congress restores appropriations to the Department of Justice or enacts a continuing resolution. Within three days after either event, the defendant must file a notice with the court. The court will then set a status conference to consider whether the scheduling order should be modified.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.