affirming district court 5 || judgment in favor of the Commissioner where the claimant, proceeding without counsel, “did not 6 || argue any discernable issues in his opening brief”
How later courts described this case
- affirming district court 5 || judgment in favor of the Commissioner where the claimant, proceeding without counsel, “did not 6 || argue any discernable issues in his opening brief”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 VORADETH DAVE V.,1 Case No. 24-cv-08984-AMO
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF
9 v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
10 SSA COMMISSIONER, Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 18
Defendant.
11
12
13 On December 12, 2024, self-represented Plaintiff Voradeth Dave V. commenced this
14 action, seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Dkt. No.
15 1. The same day, the Clerk entered a Social Security Procedural Order. The order instructed
16 Plaintiff to “file and serve on [the] Commissioner a brief for the requested relief within 30 days
17 after the answer is filed.” Dkt. No. 4. On March 7, 2025, the Commissioner filed an answer in the
18 form of a certified copy of the administrative record. Dkt. No. 13 (“AR”).
19 When Plaintiff failed to file an opening brief as required by the Social Security Procedural
20 Order, the Court issued an order show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to
21 prosecute. Dkt. No. 14 (“OSC”). The OSC instructed Plaintiff to file “(1) a written response to
22 th[e] Order that explain[ed] why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
23 (2) a brief for the requested relief.” Id. The OSC warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file both
24 documents by July 14, 2025 w[ould] result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.” Id. The
25 OSC also directed Plaintiff to free pro bono assistance available in the District. Id.
26
27
1 The Court partially redacts Plaintiff’s name to mitigate privacy concerns. See Heather L. v. Saul,
1 On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, Dkt. No. 15, and a
2 document styled “Plaintiff’s Brief,” Dkt. No. 16.2 The Brief reads:
3 Based on the records that I receive from
The Court.
4 Missing information from Edds.
The reinjury on 2/8/2002 got stuck at
5 Edds workercomp and I sufficated me until now
please see attached copies for both records first 3 pages
6 from workercomp reward + Edd 5 pages investigated fully
7 First injured 1989 & I got surgery on 1995
recovered went back to work until 2002
8
Second injury 2/8/2002 until today still
9 suffer had never recover from this injury
I had lost everything my family, my house
10 today homeless and my brother can witness.
11 Pls.’ Br. at 2 (errors and formatting in original).
12 Plaintiff attached three documents to the brief.3 The first is a document captioned
13 “Stipulations with Request for Award” from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board,
14 pertaining to a temporary disability period of August 2, 1993 to February 9, 1994. Id. at 6-8. The
15 second document appears to be a decision by ALJ J. Toni Aversa of the San Jose Office of
16 Appeals, finding Plaintiff eligible for unemployment benefits under California law due to his
17 disability, for the period of February 15, 2002 to December 8, 2016. Id. at 9-12. The third
18 document is a “Medical Certificate Form” for a “Regional Transit Connection Discount ID Card”
19 which contains a medical practitioner’s certification, dated July 31, 2019, indicating that Plaintiff
20 is permanently disabled. Id. at 13.
21 On August 7, 2025, the Commissioner filed its brief. Dkt. No. 18. The Commissioner also
22 indicated that while, on March 7, 2025, a paper copy of the Administrative Record had been
23 mailed to Plaintiff, it received notice, after Plaintiff filed his brief, that the Administrative Record
24
2 Because Plaintiff filed both required documents, the Court discharged the OSC on July 16, 2025.
25
Dkt. No. 17.
26
3 Before he filed the Brief, Plaintiff filed physical therapy progress notes from 2023-2024, and a
2019 letter from the Social Security Administration notifying him that his Supplemental Security
27
Income payments would be reduced from $1,018.04 to $0.00 because his had “countable resources
1 “had been returned undelivered because it had not been retrieved from the post office box.” Id. at
2 5. The Commissioner also represented that it arranged for another copy of the Administrative
3 Record to be mailed to Plaintiff along with a copy of the Commissioner’s Brief.” Id. The
4 Commissioner had no objection if “Plaintiff require[d] additional time to review the CAR and
5 reply to the Commissioner’s Brief.” Id.
6 Given the Commissioner’s representations, and having received no reply brief from
7 Plaintiff within the deadline set by the Social Security Procedural Order, on November 10, 2025,
8 the Court issued a further order. Dkt. No. 19. The order directed “Plaintiff to notify the Court
9 about how he intend[ed] to proceed in this case.” Id. at 1. The order set a deadline of December
10 10, 2025 for Plaintiff to “file either (a) a notice indicating that the Court should decide this appeal
11 based on the briefs already on file or (b) a reply brief in support of his appeal.” Id. The order
12 warned Plaintiff that if he did “not file a notice or a reply brief by December 10, 2025, the Court
13 w[ould], without further notice to Plaintiff, deem this appeal abandoned and dismiss it without
14 prejudice.” Id. at 2.
15 On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a declaration. The declaration states:
16 Since 2/8/2002 I got injured at the Company that I worked for opti
migth corp. Please see detail on the attached and those missed years
17 from regular MD because I was exhausted payments for medical
insurance but I’d used medical marijuana cookies I’d found one of
18 my MMG’s card please see on the attached.
Please notice this MMG’s for cookies low back pain.
19 Please resume my case.
20 Attached to the declaration was another copy of the state unemployment benefits decision Plaintiff
21 attached to his opening brief. Compare Dkt. No. 16 at 9-12 with Dkt. No. 20 at 4-7. Also
22 attached was a copy of a medical marijuana card. Dkt. No. 20 at 8-9.
23 The Court is sympathetic to the fact that Plaintiff is pursuing this Social Security appeal
24 without the assistance of counsel. And while “a document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,
25 and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
26 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[,]” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal
27 quotations and citations omitted), courts “review only issues which are argued specifically and
1 Greenwood y. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff's
2 || filings do not raise any specific argument that the ALJ erred or that the ALJ’s decision was not
3 supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the final decision of the Commissioner is
4 || AFFIRMED. See Gunn v. Colvin, 581 F. App’x 691 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court
5 || judgment in favor of the Commissioner where the claimant, proceeding without counsel, “did not
6 || argue any discernable issues in his opening brief”).
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: December 26, 2025
oh Meh
10
ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN
11 United States District Judge
a 12
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28