Langford

Langford v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 22, 20193:19-cv-01821California935 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 19cv1821-BLM TIFFANI ANNE LANGFORD,

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social [ECF No. 3] Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff initiated the instant litigation on September 22, 2019, when she filed a complaint against Defendant appealing the decision denying Plaintiff benefits. ECF No. 1. On the same date, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed (“IFP”). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was notified that his case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major pursuant to General Order 707. ECF No. 2. Attached to the notice was a consent/declination form through which Plaintiff had the choice to consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction. Id. On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed her consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS All parties instituting…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.