Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01225-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Richard Hubbard
Plaintiff
Christopher Larsen
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HUBBARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ALJ MR. CHRISTOPHER LARSEN OF )

THE SOCIAL SECURITY )

ADMINISTRATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 ) 

)

 )

1:07-cv-01225-LJO-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OBJECTIONS (DOC. 9)

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE OBJECTIONS NO LATER THAN

TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

and pro se with a civil action in this Court. The matter has been

referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

and Local Rules 72-302(c)(15) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time filed on January 14, 2008.

On December 10, 2007, the undersigned Magistrate Judge filed

findings and recommendations concerning Plaintiff’s first amended

complaint, which the Magistrate Judge concluded stated a claim

against the Commissioner of Social Security for review of an

unfavorable decision of the Commissioner with respect to

Plaintiff’s claim for benefits, but which did not state a claim

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 4
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

for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a claim against the S.S.A.

Office of Disability Adjudication. The recommendation was that

the 1983 claim be dismissed, that Plaintiff be permitted to

proceed against the Commissioner on the one claim pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383, and that the Court should thereafter

direct the issuance of a Social Security case scheduling order

and service of the complaint on the Commissioner. Plaintiff was

given thirty days in which to file objections, but no other

action by Plaintiff was requested or authorized.

On January 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for an

extension of time to file “past 30 day deadline.” Plaintiff did

not state that he wanted to file objections; instead, it appears

that Plaintiff wants to file documents he names (summons, USM-285

forms) that pertain to service of the complaint. He states that

the service documents are not available at his prison law

library, and he wants the forms as soon as possible so that he

can have them returned before the deadline. 

Plaintiff apparently has interpreted the Magistrate Judge’s

findings and recommendations as requiring Plaintiff to do

something concerning service within 30 days. However, the only

thing required of Plaintiff within the thirty-day period set

forth in the findings and recommendations was to either file

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations, or not file objections. The District Judge will

be able to review the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations, and order service of the first amended complaint

on the one claim only, only after the objections period has

passed. After the time period for filing objections has passed,

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

the District Judge will consider the findings and recommendations

and either adopt them or not. If the District Judge adopts the

findings and recommendations, the Court will then order service

of the complaint. Thus, any concern with service documents is

premature. 

The Court reiterates that if the District Judge adopts the

findings and recommendations, the Court will direct service, and

the clerk of the Court will be directed to send the appropriate

service forms to Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s having to do

anything to obtain the forms. 

The thirty-day period for objections was given to Plaintiff

in case Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion

that Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed only on the Social

Security claim, and not on the § 1983 claim or the claim against

a party other than the Commissioner. 

Plaintiff has stated that he wants to complete service

documents. It thus appears that Plaintiff agrees with the

Magistrate’s findings and recommendations that he should be able

to proceed with his Social Security claim. Therefore, it is

extremely unlikely that Plaintiff would want to file objections

to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. However,

Plaintiff has also asked for an extension of time and has

exhibited some confusion about the meaning of the findings and

recommendations.

Therefore, in an abundance of caution, and just in case the

Plaintiff wants to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time. Plaintiff MAY FILE objections no later than

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

twenty days after the date of service of this order. 

Plaintiff IS INFORMED that once the twenty-day period has

passed, the matter will be submitted to the District Judge, who

will then consider the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations. If the District Judge adopts the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation, service will then be ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 4