Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03590/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03590-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

 NO. C 09‐3590  RS

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 08/12/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ANTHONY J. FERRANTINO,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

 Defendant 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-3590 RS 

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 

RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

 This is an action seeking judicial review of certain decisions of the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration. Defendant moves to dismiss, contending that plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies by seeking reconsideration of any of the decisions he is now 

purporting to challenge, and that this Court therefore lack jurisdiction to hear the matter. In 

opposition, plaintiff, appearing in pro se, asserts that he in fact attempted to seek reconsideration but 

that his efforts to do so were thwarted by the actions or inactions of Social Security Administration 

personnel. Plaintiff’s opposition does not strictly comply with evidentiary rules, but construing it 

liberally in light of his pro se, status, it raises at least a possibility that dismissal may not be 

appropriate at this juncture.1

 Defendant has failed to file any response to plaintiff’s opposition. 

 

1

 Even if plaintiff’s factual assertions are true, they may or may not serve as a basis to avoid 

dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. That is a question defendant may address 

on reply. 

Case 5:09-cv-03590-RS Document 22 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

 NO. C 09‐3590  RS

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, defendant shall file a reply brief and any supporting 

declarations within 15 days of the date of this order. The matter shall then be taken under 

submission without oral argument.2

 Plaintiff has also filed a document labeled as a motion for summary judgment that merely 

repeats the allegations of his complaint. Even construing the motion liberally in light of plaintiff’s 

pro se status, it fails to establish a basis for summary judgment to be entered and is therefore denied. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/12/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

2

 Plaintiff has requested that this action remain in the San Jose Division, in light of medical 

conditions that make it difficult for him to travel to San Francisco. The case in fact continues to be 

a San Jose Division matter, despite the relocation of the Court to chambers in the San Francisco 

Division. Because Social Security matters such as this are ordinarily decided without courtroom 

proceedings, there is no basis at this juncture to reassign the case to a judge sitting in the San Jose 

Division. 

Case 5:09-cv-03590-RS Document 22 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

 NO. C 09‐3590  RS

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Anthony J. Ferrantino 

555 Bryant Street, #511 

Palo Alto, CA 94301 

DATED: 08/12/2010 

 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of District Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:09-cv-03590-RS Document 22 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 3