Smith v. Potter

Filing 77

ORDER RETURNING DOCKET NO. 76 TO THE CLERK FOR ASSIGNMENT AS A NEW. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/15/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RONALD SMITH,

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster
General,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER RETURNING
DOCKET NO. 76 TO
THE CLERK FOR
ASSIGNMENT AS A
NEW ACTION

Defendant.

9
10

No. C 01-3270 CW

________________________________/

11
On March 9, 2012, an order from the Federal Circuit
12
transferring Smith v. United States Postal Service, Case No.
13
SF0752110001-I-1 (M.S.P.B.), Case No. 2011-3184 (Fed. Cir.), to
14
the Northern District of California was docketed in the
15
above-captioned case as Docket No. 76.

However, it does not

16
appear that the newly-transferred case is part of, or related to,
17
the above-captioned action.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The newly-transferred case is a petition filed by Ronald
Smith for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board, which dismissed as moot Mr. Smith’s appeal of
the United States Postal Service’s removal of him from his
position as a mail-processing clerk in September 2010. See Smith
v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2011 MSPB LEXIS 488 (M.S.P.B.), pet. for
review denied, 2011 MSPB LEXIS 3219 (M.S.P.B).

1

Accordingly, the Court returns Docket No. 76 to the Clerk to

2

be docketed as a new case and randomly assigned to a Judge in

3

compliance with General Order 44.

4

If either or both parties believe that the new case is

5

related to the above-captioned case, as defined in Local Rule

6

3-12, they may file an administrative motion to consider whether

7

the cases should be related.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: 3/15/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The above-captioned case arose out of a complaint filed in
2001 by Plaintiff Ronald Smith, who may or may not be the same
individual as the petitioner in the newly-transferred case,
alleging failure reasonably to accommodate his learning disability
and discrimination on the basis of age, race and learning
disability in failing to choose him as a supervisor in 1995. This
Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant John E.
Potter on September 30, 2004. See Docket Nos. 60, 63, 64. The
decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on appeal. Smith v.
Potter, 186 Fed. Appx. 733 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1007
(2006).
2