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)
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?