Ross v. Social Security Administration

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO TRANSFER VENUE TO SAN FRANCISCO AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A RENEWED IFP APPLICATION OR PAY THE $400 FILING FEE. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 11/5/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 OAKLAND DIVISION 5 6 JAMES ROSS, Plaintiff, 7 8 vs. 9 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. 10 Case No: C 13-3960 SBA ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO TRANSFER VENUE TO SAN FRANCISCO AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE A RENEWED IFP APPLICATION OR PAY THE $400 FILING FEE 11 12 On August 26, 2013, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a form Complaint for Judicial 13 Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security, along with an Application to 14 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP). Dkt. 1, 2. On September 10, 2013, the Court issued an 15 order denying Plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice due to his failure to provide the 16 requisite information. The Court’s order stated: Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. By no later than September 30, 2013, Plaintiff shall either file a renewed IFP application or pay the $400 filing fee. Any renewed application must truthfully disclose all of the information requested in the form. To the extent that Plaintiff is employed by Hastings College of the Law but is not being paid, Plaintiff shall explain the circumstances surrounding his employment and ostensible lack of compensation. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of the action. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Dkt. 9. 23 On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Letter Notice.” Dkt. 24 10. Instead of providing the requisite information regarding his eligibility for IFP status, 25 Plaintiff states in his Letter Notice that he is afraid to take BART to the Oakland courthouse 26 because “[the] train goes under water and I am scared of that.” Id. He therefore requests 27 the Court to transfer the case to a judge in the San Francisco courthouse. Id. On October 28 15, 2013, Plaintiff refiled the identical document. Dkt. 11. 1 Plaintiff’s request to transfer venue to the San Francisco division of this Court is 2 DENIED. The assignment of this case to the Oakland division is consistent with the 3 Court’s Assignment Plan, see Gen. Order 44, and Local Rule 3-2. In addition, Plaintiff’s 4 transportation issues do not merit a transfer of venue. This case is a summary proceeding 5 which will not require any court appearances. Therefore, Plaintiff will not need to travel to 6 the Oakland courthouse for any hearings. In addition, Plaintiff may continue to submit his 7 filings by mail, thereby obviating his need to travel to Oakland. 8 9 At this juncture, the Court has yet to receive either a renewed, properly completed IFP application, or payment of the $400 filing fee. Although the Court is within its 10 discretion to dismiss the action, the Court sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff until November 11 25, 2013, to either file a renewed IFP application or pay the $400 filing fee. The failure to 12 timely file either a renewed IFP application or pay the filing fee will result in the 13 dismissal of the action without further notice. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2013 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 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?