Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00090/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 861
Nature of Suit: Social Security - HIA (1395 ff)
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL K. VERBLE,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-0090 PJH

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION

v.

J.F. STIVENS,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

On January 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a form complaint in this case for judicial review

of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, and the clerks office for this court

subsequently characterized the case as a social security appeal. Plaintiff also filed a

request to proceed in forma pauperis. The attachments to plaintiff’s complaint are

incomprehensible, and based on the fact that plaintiff has not actually named the

Commissioner as the defendant, a February 8, 2010 “subpoena to produce documents”

filed by plaintiff, and a February 16, 2010 “motion for summary judgment,” it appears to

the court that this case is not actually an appeal. 

Plaintiff is advised that a social security appeal requires a final decision by an

administrative law judge or “ALJ” denying him disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). If this is actually an appeal, then plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

request for documents are premature as the Commissioner has not yet been served,

nor has the Commissioner answered plaintiff’s complaint. The court notes for plaintiff

that if this is indeed an appeal, the Commissioner will serve him with a “certified copy of

the transcript of the administrative record” with its answer, thus rendering his subpoena

request unnecessary. For the plaintiff’s information, the court includes below language

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 7 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

from the controlling local rule, Civil L.R. 16-5, which provides:

In actions for District Court review on an administrative record, the

defendant must serve and file an answer, together with a certified copy of

the transcript of the administrative record, within 90 days of receipt of

service of the summons and complaint. Within 28 days of receipt of

defendant’s answer, plaintiff must file a motion for summary judgment

pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2 and FRCivP 56. Defendant must serve and file

any opposition or counter-motion within 28 days of service of plaintiff’s

motion. Plaintiff may serve and file a reply within 14 days after service

of defendant’s opposition or counter-motion. Unless the Court orders

otherwise, upon the conclusion of this briefing schedule, the matter will be

deemed submitted for decision by the District Court without oral argument.

However, as noted, the court questions whether this case actually constitutes an

appeal of an ALJ’s decision denying benefits. Because the standards for evaluating

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis differ depending on whether plaintiff

is appealing a decision of an ALJ or is filing a civil complaint alleging other claims,

plaintiff is ORDERED to file with this court no later than Monday, March 8, 2010, a

copy of the ALJ’s final decision denying his claim for social security benefits, and if that

is not available to him, a written statement specifying when and whether he appeared

before an ALJ for a hearing on his application for social security benefits, and when the

ALJ denied his application for social security benefits.

 If after review of plaintiff’s March 8, 2010 filing, the court determines that plaintiff

is not appealing a denial of social security benefits but is instead attempting to sue a

public agency for other violations, then the court will screen plaintiff’s complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915 at that time. 

A ruling on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be deferred

until the court receives plaintiff’s written statement and/or a copy of the ALJ’s decision

denying social security benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010

____________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 7 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2