Locke v. Astrue

Filing 53

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS AND FUTURE FILINGS (disposing of 4 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 24 , 25 , 29 , 34 , 39 , 49 , 52 ). Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 5/12/09. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 25, 2008, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in this action alleging wrongful denial of benefits by Defendant. Plaintiff subsequently filed a number of motions, including motions seeking: leave to file a brief [doc. no. 4], judicial notice [doc. no. 6], summary declaratory judgment [doc. no. 8], estoppel re multiple issues [doc. no. 11], hardship relief [doc. no. 12], medical records [doc. no. 14], summary judgment [doc. no. 24], an order striking response [doc. no. 25], summary declaratory judgment [doc. no. 29], entry of default and default judgment [doc. no. 34], findings of fact and conclusions of law [doc. no. 39], and leave to amend his brief [doc. nos. 49, 52]. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [doc. no. 42]. C a s e No. C 08-1608 JF (HRL) O R D E R RE PENDING MOTIONS AND FUTURE FILINGS ( JF L C 2 ) **E-Filed 5/12/09** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION RONALD A. LOCKE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Case Number C 08-1608 JF (HRL) ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS AND FUTURE FILINGS [re: document nos. 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 24, 25, 29, 34, 39, 42, 49, 52] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a brief [doc. no. 4] is GRANTED. The Court will consider the brief submitted by Plaintiff and entered into the docket as doc. no. 5. Plaintiff's motion for judicial notice [doc. no. 6] is DENIED. Plaintiff requests judicial notice of a prior decision of an administrative law judge, but does not attach the decision in question. Plaintiff's motions for summary declaratory relief and summary judgment [doc. nos. 8, 24, 29] are DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated his entitlement to summary judgment in this matter. Plaintiff's motion for estoppel [doc. no. 11] is DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for estoppel as to any factual or legal issues. Plaintiff's motion for hardship relief [doc. no. 12] is DENIED. Plaintiff appears to be requesting that the Court immediately order payment of benefits; however, based on the current record Plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to benefits. Plaintiff's motion for medical records [doc. no. 14] is unclear. To the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court to consider his medical records, the Court of course will consider any medical records properly made part of the record in this case. To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting some other form of relief, his request is unclear and the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff's motions to strike Defendant's response and for entry of default and default judgment [doc. nos. 25, 34] are DENIED. Those motions were filed before service of process was effected upon Defendant. Plaintiff's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law [doc. no. 39] is DENIED. The motion is inappropriate given the procedural posture of the case at this time. Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend his briefs [doc. nos. 49, 52] are GRANTED. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [doc. no. 42] remains pending. To the extent that Plaintiff intends his motions for leave to amend his briefs [doc. nos. 49, 52] to constitute opposition to Defendant's motion, the Court will consider Plaintiff's filings when adjudicating Defendant's motion. Pursuant to the briefing schedule issued on April 23, 2009, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss must be filed 2 C a s e No. C 08-1608 JF (HRL) O R D E R RE PENDING MOTIONS AND FUTURE FILINGS ( JF L C 2 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on or before May 22, 2009. Any reply brief must be filed on or before June 12, 2009. The matter thereafter will be submitted without oral argument. Because subject matter jurisdiction the issue raised in Defendant's motion must be established before this Court has authority to reach any substantive issues, the parties shall restrict their filings in this case to the opposition and reply briefs authorized above. No other motions, requests or filings will be considered until Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is fully briefed and adjudicated. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 5/12/09 __________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge 3 C a s e No. C 08-1608 JF (HRL) O R D E R RE PENDING MOTIONS AND FUTURE FILINGS ( JF L C 2 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Copies of Order served on: Theophous H Reagans , Jr Ronald A. Locke 977 S. Bascom Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 theophous.reagans@ssa.gov 4 C a s e No. C 08-1608 JF (HRL) O R D E R RE PENDING MOTIONS AND FUTURE FILINGS ( JF L C 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?