(SS) Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KIMBERLY MARGARET JIMENEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-00682-SKO 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY 11 COMPLAINT IS NOT BARRED 12 v. 21-DAY DEADLINE MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. _____________________________________/ 17 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”).

19 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.

22 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.

24 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.

27 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 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.)

5 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.)

10 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).

14 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.

16 17).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: November 25, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE