Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789-2/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

1

Judge Brazil entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff consistent with his Order on the same

day (Dkt. #34), and this matter was thereafter closed. 

ORDER RE: (1) PLAINTIFF’S JANUARY 13 FILING; (2) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

 C 08-03789

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

JOHN COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-03789 LB

ORDER RE: (1) PLAINTIFF’S

JANUARY 13 FILING; (2) SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

 On January 11, 2010, this matter was re-assigned from Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil to

the undersigned. Subsequently, on January 13, 2010, pro se Plaintiff John Coleman submitted a

letter (Dkt. #38) to the undersigned regarding Defendant Social Security Administration’s alleged

non-compliance with Judge Brazil’s August 7, 2009 Order on Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s crossmotions for summary judgment. In that Order, Judge Brazil granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, in part, by remanding this case to Defendant for an award of Supplemental Security

Income (“SSI”) disability benefits earned during the period of July 27, 2004, to August 3, 2005. 

(Dkt. #33 at 16.)1

 In his January 13, 2010 letter, Plaintiff now contends that Defendant has refused

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 40 Filed 02/23/10 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

2

 A copy of the Pro Se handbook is available at the District Court Clerk’s Office or at:

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CAND/FAQ.nsf/60126b66e42d004888256d4e007bce29/14de5a2dfcd

aa08c88256ebc0054574f?OpenDocument

ORDER RE: (1) PLAINTIFF’S JANUARY 13 FILING; (2) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

 C 08-03789

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

to pay benefits consistent with Judge Brazil’s Order. (Dkt. #38 at 3.) Rather, Plaintiff asserts that

Defendant will only pay benefits for the period spanning February 2005 through August 2005. (Id.) 

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order Defendant to pay benefits for the 8-month period

previously specified in Judge Brazil’s Order. (Id.)

After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s letter, and mindful that the Court is to construe pro

se filings liberally, the Court will interpret Plaintiff’s January 13 filing as a Petition for Writ of

Mandamus. See Cleese v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 911 F. Supp. 1312, 1315 (D. Ore. 1995);

Zakarian v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1214 (D. Haw. 2009); Doe v.

Astrue, C 09-00980, 2009 WL 2566720, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009). Since Plaintiff

neither served the letter on Defendant nor noticed it as a motion for hearing before the Court, the

Court now ORDERS that Defendant shall file an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Petition for a Writ of

Mandamus by March 18, 2010. Plaintiff shall file a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition by April 1,

2010. Once the parties have fully briefed this issue, the Court will issue a subsequent order detailing

how it will proceed.

The Court further ORDERS that all subsequent filings by the parties comply with Judge

Beeler’s Standing Orders.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 40 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2