From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. California
Mar 24, 2009
CIV S-09-0628 GGH (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2009)

Summary

noting that "fairly stable" and "doing well" are relative terms

Summary of this case from Moriel v. Berryhill

Opinion

CIV S-09-0628 GGH.

March 24, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiff has requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the undersigned's scheduling order in social security cases.

3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States Marshal.

4. Within fifteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit to the United States Marshal an original and five copies of the completed summons, five copies of the complaint, five copies of the scheduling order and a completed USM-285 form and shall file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal.

5. The United States Marshal is directed to serve all process without prepayment of costs not later than sixty days from the date of this order. Service of process shall be completed by delivering a copy of the summons, complaint, and scheduling order to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and by sending two copies of the summons, complaint, and scheduling order by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(1)(A) (B). The Marshal shall also send a copy of the summons, complaint, and scheduling order by registered or certified mail to the Commissioner of Social Security, c/o Office of General Counsel, 6401 Security Blvd., Room 611, Altmeyer Blvd., Baltimore, MD, 21235. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(2).


Summaries of

Perez v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. California
Mar 24, 2009
CIV S-09-0628 GGH (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2009)

noting that "fairly stable" and "doing well" are relative terms

Summary of this case from Moriel v. Berryhill
Case details for

Perez v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MARIA PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 24, 2009

Citations

CIV S-09-0628 GGH (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2009)

Citing Cases

Oberdieck v. Astrue

A disability finding will not be affirmed where more than one reason was in error. Batson v. Barnhart, 359…

Moriel v. Berryhill

In fact, a notation that a plaintiff is "generally doing well," by itself, does not contradict a treating…