Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ratmyseng v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 20, 2009

NANG N. RATMYSENG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER FOLLOWING SHOW CAUSE HEARING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S PERSONAL APPEARANCE ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 29) Deadline for Plaintiff to Obtain Legal Counsel: 3/27/09

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in an action seeking judicial review of an administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that denied, in whole or in part, her claim for benefits under the Social Security Act. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (Docs. 7 & 11), and the case has been assigned to the Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings, including the entry of a final judgment (Doc. 12).

This matter came on regularly for an Order to Show Cause Hearing, requiring plaintiff to personally appear, on February 20, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 of this Court before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. This case was called at approximately 9:35 a.m., and plaintiff was not personally present. During the remaining civil law and motion calendar, and at approximately 10:15 a.m., plaintiff personally appeared with her mother and essentially explained that they had initially appeared at the Fresno County Courthouse on Van Ness Avenue. The Court also inquired as to plaintiff's current and correct address, which plaintiff's mother advised was 443 (not 447) N. Diana, Apt. B, Fresno, CA, 93701.

Inasmuch as plaintiff had legal counsel when this case was filed on November 27, 2007 until October 3, 2008, the Court admonished plaintiff and her mother that the Court could not help her/them through the necessary processes of the case. It is clear to the Court that neither the young (19-year-old) pro se plaintiff or her mother understand English very well, nor this social security review process, let alone how to compose an opening brief.

The Court provided plaintiff and her mother with a list of attorneys who practice social security law, and granted plaintiff until March 27, 2009, by which she is to obtain legal counsel OR her case will be dismissed outright pursuant to the inherent power of this Court.

The Order to Show Cause issued on January 30, 2009 (Doc. 29) is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090220

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.