Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
John Coleman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 C 08-03789

ORDER RE: (1) PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 28, 2010 FILING; (2) SETTING FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

JOHN COLEMAN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-03789 LB

ORDER RE: (1) PLAINTIFF’S APRIL

28, 2010 FILING; (2) SETTING

FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE

On April 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a letter in the above captioned matter. (Dkt. # 48.) Since

pro se filings must be construed liberally, after thorough evaluation of Plaintiff’s letter, the Court

interprets it as a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s January 13, 2010 filing. Hughes v.

Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001); Hamilton v. U.S.,

67 F.3d 761, 764 (9th Cir. 1995). In accordance with Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff may file an

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b) no later than

June 10, 2010. Defendant’s Reply must be filed no later than June 17, 2010. Any other filings not

related to the pending motions or permitted under the Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil

///

///

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 49 Filed 05/03/10 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 C 08-03789

ORDER RE: (1) PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 28, 2010 FILING; (2) SETTING FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Procedure will be stricken by the Court and not considered in resolving the pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 49 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2