extension of time2

8/14/2019 Extension of Time2

1/5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

____________________________

No.__________________

Monica Hoeft

In Pro Se, Petitioner-Applicant

v.

Michael J. Astrue

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Respondent

______________________________

APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

Pursuant to Rules 13.5 and 30.2 of this Court, Petitioner Monica Hoeft, In Pro

Se, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, hereby respectfully requests to the

Honorable Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, that the time to file a

petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter be extended for 60 days up and

including May 17th, 2010, 60 days from the 90 day due date of March 18th,

2010, from the denial of the en banc petition attached hereto as Appendix 3

dated December 18th, 2009.

Hoefts Appeal perfected on July 7, 2009 and mandate was entered On July

14th, 2009 as attached hereto as Appendix 1. Hoeft moved for an En Banc

hearing and an extension of time due to illness and it was granted for

Page 1 of5


2/5

October 5th, 2009 attached hereto as Appendix 2. Hoeft Moved for Counsel

on October 4th, 2009 and it was denied. And mandated was entered

prematurely on October 14th, 2009, attached hereto as Appendix 4. Hoeft is

mentally ill and not on any medications and not being seen by any doctors

until January 21st, 2010 see Appendix 5. She does not know if the

medications she will get will render her capable of maintaining such an

important suit as the one before her now. Unless she knows her medical

condition will be relatively stable, the jurisdiction of the Court would be

invoked under 28 U.S.C 1254(1).

(1) Petitioner Hoeft is a mentally disabled individual who presents herself

with severe bi-polar disorder, depression, PTSD, seizures, blackout

spells, dizziness, anxiety disorders, agoraphobia and various other

disorders. She spent almost three years in bed before she was

properly diagnosed. During the administrative hearing phase in front

of the Administrative Law Judge she was denied the right to a

Vocational Expert in complete disregard of the legal standard of

Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66

(1983) nor lay witness testimony, where witnesses were present

waiting to be called upon in the waiting area. The ALJ summarily

dismissed the Claimants testimony on a single quantum of evidence

rather than the whole and rejecting the medical evidence of the

treating physician and that of the Social Security Physician Dr. Rogina

who saw the Claimants condition as guarded and who should be on

Page 2 of5


3/5

disability, without giving a reason as to why he rejected the testimony

or the medical evidence.

(2) Petitioner fired her attorney for malfeasance after she found out that

he completely misrepresented her and tried to get another attorney to

represent her in the appeal to the district court (after various

administrative appeals failed). No attorney would represent her from

San Francisco to Little Rock, Arkansas. So she had to go at it alone.

(3) Petitioner moved the Federal District Court in Reno, NV to remand the

ALJs decision, but the Magistrate upheld the decision. Hoeft asked

the presiding Judge to review the Magistrates decision and he upheld

it too. Hoeft appealed it to the Federal District Court in San Francisco.

(4) After Various motions to extend time on both sides, and motions for

counsel on Hoefts side, the appeal was perfected and the appeal was

heard. Hoefts request for disability was denied on July 7, 2009. Hoeft

exhausted all of the lower Courts decisions before petitioning this

court.

Now Hoeft asks that this honorable Court entertains a Writ of Certiorari.

But Petitioner cannot comply within the specified time unless she is

somewhat stabilized on needed medications and knows whether or not

her in forma pauperis status is granted and also needs an excess of time

to do legal research to do a comprehensive brief that not only complies

with the Rules of this Court but one that also conveys the message that

this Court needs to hear. Petitioner is of the informed belief that this is a

Page 3 of5


4/5

most important case for the High Court to hear in that the administrative

Law Judge to the Ninth Circuit has trampled recklessly on the rights of a

mentally ill individual by denying them the rights of a vocational expert

that is required by law as set forth by this court under the case of Heckler

v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983) and that

it is ripe for a petition of a writ of certiorari.

DATED:

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________

Monica Hoeft

Page 4 of5


5/5

0CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746 that I served acopy of the Motion for Stay of Mandate pending petition of Writ of Certiorarito the United States Supreme Court from the Appellant upon the Appelleeand to the Solicitor General of the United States.

DATED:

Solicitor General of the United StatesRoom 5614Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC 20530-0001

Office of the General Counsel of the Social Security AdministrationRoom 6116401 Security BlvdBaltimore MD., 21235

____________________Monica HoeftIn Pro Se

Page 5 of5

extension of time2

Documents