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.

Infinity v. Jo Ellen Felice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 11, 2012

INFINITY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JO ELLEN FELICE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME SECURITY PROGRAMS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate confined at Pleasant Valley State Prison, is proceeding in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and/or 2201. Dckt. No. 7 at 1, 2. The order granting plaintiff's in forma pauperis application and directing service noted that plaintiff's complaint challenges the alleged failure by defendant to issue him a Social Security card after he legally changed his name, that plaintiff seeks a declaration of his rights and the duty owed to him by defendant, and that plaintiff does not seek monetary damages. Id. at 2.

On March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a declaration in support of his complaint, which contained numerous allegations that were not included in plaintiff's complaint, were outside the scope of the service order, and were unrelated to the allegations in the complaint. See Dckt. No. 13. Therefore, on March 15, 2012, the undersigned ordered that the declaration be stricken. Dckt. No. 14.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 15, 2012 order. Dckt. No. 16. Plaintiff contends that the declaration had the wrong caption page and was intended to be filed in an action against a different defendant. Id. at 1. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the declaration was "directed against Michael J. Astrue, [the Commissioner of Social Security,] to show him [plaintiff's] qualifications to receive SSI and other disability benefits under the Social Security Act . . . ." Id. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration confirms that the allegations made in the declaration are unrelated to the allegations in the original complaint, and that therefore the order striking plaintiff's declaration was proper. To the extent plaintiff seeks to address his entitlement to disability benefits, any such claims shall be raised in a separate action. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the March 15, 2012 order, Dckt. No. 16, is denied.

20120411

© 1992-2012 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.