Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00991/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00991-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Lee Cofer
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN LEE COFER, ) 1:08-cv-991 GSA

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL

) BRIEFING

)

 vs. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, )

)

) 

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in this action on July 14, 2008. The

summons and complaint were served on the Commissioner on August 18, 2008. The Commissioner

has not filed an answer.

On January 26, 2009, the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) filed a

motion to remand this matter pursuant to sentence six of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on the basis that the Commissioner was unable to provide a complete record of

the administrative hearing because of problems with the recording. On March 5, 2009, this Court

remanded the action pursuant to the Commissioner’s request. Defendant has been providing the

Court with status reports and has indicated that another administrative hearing was completed on

November 23, 2009, by Administrative Law Judge Howard Treblin in San Diego, California. 

Defendant also indicated that Plaintiff did not file an appeal from the November 2009 proceeding

before the Appeals Council and that another status report would be filed on September 1, 2010. 

(Doc. 31). 

1

Case 1:08-cv-00991-GSA Document 34 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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

On June 28, 2010, Plaintiff sent the Court a letter advising the Court that he has moved to

Clay Center, Kansas, and that he filed an appeal on March 10, 2010. Plaintiff contends that when the

new hearing was held in San Diego, a complete copy of the file was not sent to the judge, and he is

working with a representative in the Social Security Office in Manhattan, Kansas, to organize his

records. Plaintiff requests the Court’s assistance in facilitating his application in Manhattan Kansas.

Based on the above, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the parties shall

submit briefing on the following issues:

1) Whether Plaintiff was obligated to file a Notice of Appeal with the Appeals Council from

the November 2009 proceeding, whether he did in fact timely appeal, and how a failure to timely file

a Notice of Appeal would affect this case. Evidence of a timely filed appeal or lack thereof shall be

attached to any briefing; and

2) Whether transfer to the United States District Court of Kansas is appropriate given

Plaintiff’s new address; and

3) Plaintiff shall advise the Court whether he intends to pursue this action given his recent

contacts with the Social Security Office in Kansas. Plaintiff is advised that this Court has no

jurisdiction to facilitate the granting of his disability application in Kansas.

The parties are advised that failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this

action or an entry of default. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00991-GSA Document 34 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2