Wheat v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/27/15 ORDERING that Plantiff's MOTION to Change Venue 15 is GRANTED in part; The hearing on Defendant's MOTION to DISMISS 14 is CONTINUED from 4/29/15 to 5/27/2015 at 10:00 AM in R edding (CMK) before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison. The parties shall inform the court, on or before 5/13/15, whether they wish to waive oral argument, appear in person in Redding, appear via video conference from Sacramento, or appear telepho nically through Court Call. For those appearing through the Sacramento Courthouse, the hearing will be held in at 501 I Street, Courtroom 9, 13th Floor. (Mena-Sanchez, L) Plaintiff's opposition to the motion shall be filed in accordance with LocalRule 230(c), at least 14 days prior to the hearing date; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Judicial Services Supervisor. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CAMILLE WHEAT,
12
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-0688-CMK PS
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15
Defendant.
16
/
17
Plaintiff, who is proceeding in propria persona, brings this action for judicial
18
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
19
Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14), currently set for hearing
20
before the undersigned in Redding, California, on April 29, 2015. Plaintiff has responded to this
21
motion with a motion to change venue (Doc. 15).
22
In her motion, plaintiff indicates that she lacks transportation and the ability to
23
travel from Davis to Redding in order to attend the hearing. The undersigned acknowledges
24
public transportation to Redding can be difficult. However, as the court has the ability to hold
25
hearings telephonically or by video conference, it is unnecessary to reassign this case to a
26
different judge located in Sacramento. In order to accommodate plaintiff’s transportation
1
1
difficulties, the court will continue the hearing and allow the parties to waive oral arguments,
2
appear either telephonically through CourtCall, or through the court’s internal video conference
3
from a courtroom in Sacramento. A courtroom will be made available to the parties, and the
4
court in Sacramento will conference in with the court in Redding.
5
Finally, the court notes that no actual opposition to the motion to dismiss has been
6
filed. Given the continuance of the hearing date, pursuant to the local rules, any opposition to the
7
motion to dismiss shall be filed and served no later than 14 days prior to the continued hearing
8
date. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition, addressing the jurisdictional reasons
9
defendant contends dismissal is required, may result in the hearing being taken off calendar and
10
submitted on the papers.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to change venue (Doc. 15) is granted in part;
13
2.
The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, on calendar April 29, 2015,
14
is continued to May 27, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.;
15
3.
The parties shall inform the court, on or before May 13, 2015, whether
16
they wish to waive oral argument, appear in person in Redding, appear via video conference from
17
Sacramento, or appear telephonically through CourtCall;
18
19
4.
For those appearing through the Sacramento Courthouse, the hearing will
be held in at 501 I Street, Courtroom 9, 13th Floor;
20
5.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion shall be filed in accordance with Local
21
Rule 230(c), at least 14 days prior to the hearing date; and
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
2
1
2
6.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the
Judicial Services Supervisor.
3
4
5
6
DATED: April 27, 2015
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?