Facts
- Plaintiff Kimberly Margaret Jimenez filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c) on December 22, 2020, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income [lines="15-21"].
- The Magistrate Judge recommended judgment in favor of the Commissioner, which was adopted by the District Judge on October 18, 2023 [lines="24-31"].
- On June 11, 2024, Jimenez filed a new action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) regarding the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income [lines="34-38"].
- Jimenez's motion for summary judgment filed on September 9, 2024, was directed at the previously adjudicated May 28, 2020 decision, ignoring the final administrative decision from April 22, 2024, referenced in her complaint [lines="42-48"].
- The Court ordered Jimenez to explain within twenty-one days why her action is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, or otherwise untimely [lines="57-67"].
Issues
- Whether Jimenez's current action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel arising from her previous case, Jimenez I [lines="60-61"].
- Whether Jimenez's action is untimely under the relevant statutory provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) [lines="65-67"].
Holdings
- Jimenez must file a brief within twenty-one days to demonstrate why her current complaint is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, or else summary judgment may be granted in favor of the Commissioner [lines="68-70"].
- The Court's directive emphasizes the need for Jimenez to clarify the timeliness issue concerning her current complaint [lines="65-67"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 1:24-cv-00682-SKO Document 18 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 1:24-cv-00682-SKO KIMBERLY MARGARET JIMENEZ, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT IS NOT BARRED v. 21-DAY DEADLINE MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff Kimberly Margaret Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c). Jimenez v. Kijakazi , Case No. 1:20-cv-01808-ADA-GSA (“ Jimenez I ”). That action sought judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) dated May 28, 2020, denying her application for Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Id. at Doc. 1.
The assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations recommending entry of judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner. Jimenez I at Doc. 24. No objections to the findings and recommendations were filed. On October 18, 2023, the assigned District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations, and judgment was entered in favor of the Commissioner. Id . at Docs. 25 & 26.
On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff Kimberly Margaret Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner *2 Case 1:24-cv-00682-SKO Document 18 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2 denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Act. Plaintiff’s complaint states that it is an “appeal from a final administrative decision denying [P]laintiff’s claim” and references a “Notice of Appeals Council dated April 22, 2024.” (Doc. 1 at 2.)
Plaintiff filed her motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2024. (Doc. 15.) However, the motion does not mention the final administrative decision dated April 22, 2024, and instead is directed to the decision finalized on May 28, 2020—the decision that was previously adjudicated in Jimenez I . ( See id . at 7.) In fact, Plaintiff’s motion makes the same arguments that were considered, and rejected, in Jimenez I . ( Compare Doc. 15 with Jimenez I at Docs. 21, 24.)
Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the date of this Order , Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a brief of no more than ten pages explaining why this action is not barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, see Mathews v. Chater , 173 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 1999), and is not otherwise untimely, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).
The Court cautions Plaintiff that, if she fails to act within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, summary judgment in favor of Defendant will be granted ( see Doc. 17).
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
Dated: November 25, 2024 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2