Walker-Goggins v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 13, 2020
• Docket: 2:15-cv-01839
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 ANNETTE WALKER-GOGGINS, Case No. 2:15-CV-1839 JCM (EJY)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is Walker-Goggins v. Social Security Administration, case 14 number 2:15-cv-01839-JCM-EJY. Plaintiff Annette Walker-Goggins, appearing pro se, filed a 15 complaint (ECF No. 9) that Magistrate Judge Hoffman screened (ECF No. 8). Judge Hoffman 16 noted that “[t]he facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint are difficult to follow and 17 incomprehensible,” reviewed the complaint, and found that plaintiff’s claims were “incoherent, 18 fanciful, and delusional.” Id. at 2–3. Judge Hoffman recommended the complaint be dismissed, 19 id., and this court adopted that recommendation (ECF No. 13). 20 Plaintiff filed a “motion to set aside order (cancel) for summary eviction and seal case & 21 domestic terrorism.” (ECF Nos. 25; 26). Plaintiff attaches 52 pages of documents, some 22 pertaining to the Social Security Administration, others to a criminal action in the state of Georgia, 23 and others pertaining to plaintiff’s marital status. See generally id. 24 However, plaintiff’s motions are devoid of cogent legal argument. Accordingly, the court 25 denies both motions. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of a moving party to file points and authorities 26 in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.”); see also Ghazali v. 27 Moran. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s 28 local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A pro se defendant is subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence as defendants who are represented by counsel.”). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiffs motion to set 5 | aside (ECF No. 25) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to seal (ECF No. 26) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 8 DATED July 13, 2020. ° tas ©. Aallan 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-