Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01532/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01532-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY RICHARDS,

Plaintiff, No. C 08-1532 PJH

v. ORDER DIRECTING REASSIGNMENT

OF RETIRED JUDGE CASE

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s complaint, application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), and motion for temporary restraining order, all filed on March 19, 2008, and

reassigned to the undersigned judge on March 21, 2008 because of the lack of consent of

all parties to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge who was originally assigned. Although

a new case number has been reassigned, it appears that plaintiff is actually seeking to

reopen a previously adjudicated case involving the same parties, Richards v. Apfel, C 98-

4132 CAL. In that case, Judge Legge, now retired, entered judgment in favor of defendant

on April 23, 1999; denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment on July 28, 2000; and

was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on February 6, 2001. In the recently filed complaint,

plaintiff states that he seeks enforcement of a previous order of the court entered in the

closed case, and in the motion for restraining order, plaintiff states that the issues raised in

the current case were previously decided in the closed case.

Accordingly, a new case number should not have been assigned to this case, rather

the old case should have been reopened. An easy transfer of this case is hampered,

however, by the fact that Judge Legge is no longer with the court. Thus the clerk is

directed to reassign the closed case in accordance with the policy and procedure that has

Case 3:08-cv-01532-MMC Document 8 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

been followed for the reassignment of all of Judge Legge’s cases – to either a new

randomly selected district judge or to the general duty judge– and to bring the new case to

the judge’s attention. The undersigned judge is not entirely clear as to which procedure is

the correct one. The new case should be dismissed as duplicative, but so that it is clear to

the assigned judge what has occurred, the undersigned judge does not order that herein.

Given plaintiff’s request for temporary injunctive relief, the clerk is requested to make

the assignment as expeditiously as possible.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01532-MMC Document 8 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2