Garth v. United States et al

Filing 31

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/2/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 JUDY GARTH, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 vs. Case No.: 11-cv-05592-YGR ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 14 On January 23, 2013, the Court dismissed this action based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 22.) Judgment has been entered (Dkt. No. 23) and the case has been closed. 15 Since that time, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions and requests for extensions of time. 16 Plaintiff initially filed a “Notice of Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order Granting Defendant’s 17 Motion to Dismiss; Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; 18 Motion to Correct the Record Due to Clerical Error; Motion for Extension of Time to Resubmit and 19 Documents.” (Dkt. No. 24.) She asserted that a “court clerk clerical error” had been made and that 20 the record did not reflect documents she has filed. On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff requested 15 21 additional days to file the documents because they are not in her possession “nor does she have access 22 to them due to unforeseen circumstances and the USPS.” (Dkt. No. 25.) Without taking a position on 23 whether Plaintiff’s motions were proper, the Court granted her request for an extension of time to file 24 documents until March 8, 2013. (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that she may seek 25 limited legal assistance from the Federal Pro Bono Project, and provided her with its contact 26 information and office location. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff did not file the documents on March 8, and instead filed a Request for Additional 28 Time to File and Serve Missing Documents Due to Unavailability and Unforeseen Circumstances. 1 (Dkt. No. 27.) Plaintiff stated she would file the documents and her motion on March 12, 2013. On 2 March 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended/Supplemental Request for Additional time to File and 3 Serve Missing Documents Due to Unavailability and Unforeseen Circumstances. (Dkt. No. 28.) 4 Plaintiff requested until March 18 to file the documents. The Court approved Plaintiff’s request on 5 March 18, 2013 and ordered, per her request, that the documents be filed by that date. 6 Plaintiff filed a Notice to Submit Documents on March 27, 2013. (Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff 7 asserts that she did not receive the Court’s March 18, 2013 order until March 26, 2013 and that it was 8 a “surprise” to her because she had “no knowledge the court granted [her previous request for] 9 extension.” The Court notes that a Proof of Service in the record reflects that the March 18, 2013 10 order was sent to Plaintiff’s address on that date. (Dkt. No. 29-1.) In Plaintiff’s Notice to Submit 11 Documents, she states that she “shall” submit the documents by Friday, March 29, 2013. Northern District of California United States District Court 12 To date, Plaintiff has not filed the documents at issue in her requests. The Court has afforded 13 Plaintiff numerous opportunities to file the documents, without knowing the basis of the relief she 14 requests nor having received any explanation of grounds for her requests. Moreover, it is unclear to 15 the Court how documents that Plaintiff may file affects this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 (See Dkt. No. 22.) For these reasons, the Court will no longer entertain Plaintiff’s attempts to seek 17 extensions of time to file the documents she claims were never docketed. 18 This Order terminates all pending motions before the Court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: April 2, 2013 ___________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?