Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2026

Pamintuan v. Commissioner

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:25-cv-09833
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSocial Security
In one sentence

In Rowena Castrence Pamintuan v. SSA Commissioner, Judge Hixson ordered a response explaining missed deadlines before possible dismissal.

Who this affects

Rowena Castrence Pamintuan, whose case may be dismissed if she does not submit the required declaration by March 19, 2026.

What happened

Rowena Castrence Pamintuan v. SSA Commissioner concerns the plaintiff’s failure to file a required record statement and revised brief by court-ordered deadlines.

The court had previously directed the parties to discuss whether to file a joint or separate statement of the administrative record. After Pamintuan filed a brief without the required statement, the court denied that brief without prejudice and set a new deadline. She did not respond by March 10, 2026.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Pamintuan to explain by March 19, 2026, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court deadlines. The order did not dismiss the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pamintuan v. Commissioner · No. 3:25-cv-09833
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Mar. 12, 2026

Background

The court had ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether they would file a joint statement or separate statements of the administrative record. The court then directed Pamintuan to file one of those statements on the same date as her opening brief.

On February 13, 2026, Pamintuan filed a brief but did not file a joint or separate statement. The court denied the brief without prejudice and ordered the parties to meet and confer again. It directed Pamintuan to file a revised brief and the required statement by March 10, 2026. The order states that she had not responded as of March 12, 2026.

Order

The court invoked its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with court orders. It ordered Pamintuan to show cause, meaning to explain, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.

Pamintuan must file a declaration by March 19, 2026. The court warned that the case will likely be dismissed if she does not file a written response by that deadline. This order itself does not dismiss the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.