Abd-Elmalek v. Jenkins ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 AMIR F. ABD-ELMALEK, Case No. 2:16-CV-02509-APG-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 8 Defendant. 9 10 Before the Court is a letter received from Plaintiff Amir F. Abd-Elmalek in which he states 11 he does not understand what he must do to move his complaint against the Commissioner of Social 12 Security forward. ECF No. 27. This letter shows a cc to Martin A. Muckleroy, an attorney licensed 13 in the State of Nevada. 14 Whether pro se or represented, plaintiffs must follow the Rules of Civil Procedure and must 15 present to the Court the issues they seek the Court to decide. On November 3, 2016, the Court 16 dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, giving Plaintiff the opportunity to file an 17 Amended Complaint that would state claims the Court could consider and ultimately rule upon. ECF 18 No. 3. Plaintiff’s case was then dismissed on March 8, 2017 because Plaintiff did not file an 19 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 6. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider (ECF 20 No. 8) and the Court reopened Plaintiff’s case on April 3, 2017 requiring Plaintiff to file an Amended 21 Complaint by May 17, 2017. ECF No. 9. 22 On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 10. On May 7, 2019, the 23 Court ordered the Amended Complaint to proceed and gave Plaintiff 60 days to serve the 24 Commissioner. ECF No. 11.1 Plaintiff served the Commissioner who answered Plaintiff’s 25 Amended Complaint on July 9, 2019. ECF No. 17. On October 22, 2019, the Court issued an Order 26 stating motions were due by November 21, 2019. ECF No. 20. That Order explained that Plaintiff 27 1 must file a Motion to Remand his case to the Social Security Administration if Plaintiff seeks the 2 Administration to reconsider or reverse its ruling denying benefits. Id. The Order includes a 3 description of what Plaintiff must do on pages 2 and 3, and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file his 4 Motion. Id. 5 Plaintiff did not file a Motion within 30 days of the Order or to date. Plaintiff continues to 6 state he does not understand what he must do to move his case forward. The Court cannot act as 7 Plaintiff’s advocate or provide step by step instructions regarding how to proceed on his case. Courts 8 should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants. A statement explaining the deficiencies 9 of a filing need not provide great detail or require district courts to act as legal advisors to pro se 10 plaintiffs. For example, when dismissing a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim, district 11 courts need draft only a few sentences explaining the problems with the filing. “The Supreme 12 Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of pro se 13 litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 14 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)). In practice, this means that pro se plaintiffs are ultimately held “to less 15 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 16 (1972). This does not mean, however, that a court can make the plaintiff’s case where he has failed 17 to do so. Young v. Wachovia FSB, Case No. C11-0552, 2011 WL 3022301, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 18 22, 2011). 19 Plaintiff was provided multiple opportunities to file a Motion to Remand his case for further 20 consideration or reversal by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff has not done so. The 21 Court appreciates that Plaintiff may not be a skilled advocate, but he has provided nothing by way 22 of facts, law or discussion regarding alleged error by the Commissioner of Social Security upon 23 which the Court can rule. 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is directed to 26 file a written motion explaining that he has exhausted his appeal rights within the Social Security 27 Administration and, with reasonable particularity, detailing the alleged errors made by the 1 Administrative Law Judge that decided his case thereby warranting reversal or remand. See ECF No. 2 20. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. 3 4 DATED: February 25, 2020 5 6 7 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27