Walker-Goggins v. Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Set Aside; ORDER denying 26 Motion to Seal; Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:15-cv-01839-JCM-EJY Document 27 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ANNETTE WALKER-GOGGINS,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-1839 JCM (EJY)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Walker-Goggins v. Social Security Administration, case

14

number 2:15-cv-01839-JCM-EJY. Plaintiff Annette Walker-Goggins, appearing pro se, filed a

15

complaint (ECF No. 9) that Magistrate Judge Hoffman screened (ECF No. 8). Judge Hoffman

16

noted that “[t]he facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint are difficult to follow and

17

incomprehensible,” reviewed the complaint, and found that plaintiff’s claims were “incoherent,

18

fanciful, and delusional.” Id. at 2–3. Judge Hoffman recommended the complaint be dismissed,

19

id., and this court adopted that recommendation (ECF No. 13).

20

Plaintiff filed a “motion to set aside order (cancel) for summary eviction and seal case &

21

domestic terrorism.” (ECF Nos. 25; 26). Plaintiff attaches 52 pages of documents, some

22

pertaining to the Social Security Administration, others to a criminal action in the state of Georgia,

23

and others pertaining to plaintiff’s marital status. See generally id.

24

However, plaintiff’s motions are devoid of cogent legal argument. Accordingly, the court

25

denies both motions. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities

26

in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.”); see also Ghazali v.

27

Moran. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s

28

local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01839-JCM-EJY Document 27 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2

1

1984) (“A pro se defendant is subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence as defendants

2

who are represented by counsel.”).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to set

5
6
7
8

aside (ECF No. 25) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 26) be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED.
DATED July 13, 2020.

9
10

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-