Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01532/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01532-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Larry Richards
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

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 GRANTING IFP

APPLICATION AND DENYING

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, TRO REQUEST

Social Security Administration, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

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

(“IFP”), both filed in this district on March 19, 2008, and reassigned to this court on March

21, 2008. The court, by separate order filed concurrently herewith, GRANTS the request to

proceed in forma pauperis. In accordance with IFP procedures, the United States Marshal

is therefore charged with serving plaintiff’s complaint and any attendant papers upon the

defendant. Service by the Marshal may take several months on occasion.

In addition to the complaint and IFP application, plaintiff has also filed an

“emergency” motion, seeking a temporary restraining order. The court cannot act on this

motion, however, until service of the underlying complaint, and the motion, is effected. 

Accordingly, the court must wait to rule upon plaintiff’s motion, until service by the Marshal

is complete. 

If plaintiff wishes to expedite this process by serving the complaint and motion on

defendant himself, he should appear at the clerk’s office to obtain a summons, and

thereafter serve defendant with the summons, complaint, motion for temporary restraining

order, and any other required papers. Plaintiff must then notify the court when service is

complete, and furthermore indicate whether plaintiff wishes to re-notice his motion. If so,

Case 3:08-cv-01532-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 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

the court will schedule plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order for immediate

hearing. The court accordingly DENIES plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order. 

The denial is only for administrative purposes, however, pending completion of service and

notification to the court as set forth above.

This order also disposes of the two “ex parte” motions filed by plaintiff on April 3,

2008, which seek a continued request for hearing, and for the court to order service by the

U.S. Marshal. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01532-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 2