Park v. Social Security Administration
- William Alsup
- 3:18-cv-06603
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Park v. Saul, Judge Alsup denied Park’s request to vacate dismissal and ordered him to update his address before documents could be resent.
Waring Park, the defendants, and the clerk’s handling of the requested documents were affected by the order.
What happened
In Waring Park v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, et al., Park asked the court to set aside the case’s dismissal and provide documents.
The court treated Park’s January 2 letter as a request under Rule 60. Park argued that the dismissal order should be changed, but the court found that he identified no legal error, new material fact, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstance. The court also said earlier documents sent to his address of record had been returned as undelivered.
The motion to vacate was denied. The court ordered Park to update his address with the court and send the defendants a copy of the address change; after that, the clerk would send another set of documents. The order was signed by Judge William Alsup.
The detailed version
- Park v. Social Security Administration · No. 3:18-cv-06603
- William Alsup
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
The court addressed a letter from Waring Park dated January 2. The court interpreted the letter as both a motion to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and a request for documents. The earlier case had been dismissed in an order identified as Docket No. 25.
Motion to Vacate
The court explained that Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical mistakes, but Park did not allege that the dismissal order contained such a mistake. Rule 60(b) can provide relief from a judgment in circumstances including excusable neglect, opposing-party misconduct, newly discovered evidence, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or other extraordinary circumstances.
The court characterized Park’s filing as an extensive disagreement with the dismissal order. It stated that Park did not identify specific legal errors, new material facts, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief. The court therefore denied the motion to vacate.
Request for Documents and Address Update
The court noted that earlier attempts to send Park documents had failed because they were returned as undelivered. It stated that the documents had been sent to Park’s address of record and that his correspondence appeared to come from a new address.
The court ordered Park to update his address of record with the court and serve the defendants with a copy of the address change. The court said that, once Park completed those steps, the clerk would send a second set of documents to the updated address.
Disposition
The order denied the Rule 60 motion to vacate and directed Park to update his address and notify the defendants. Judge William Alsup signed the order on January 13, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.