judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

ISANG UMOREN V. ADPRESS INTERNATIONAL, ET AL

Case Information: 07-AA-0055
Short Caption:ISANG UMOREN V. ADPRESS INTERNATIONAL, ET ALClassification:Agency - Administrative Agency - Employment Services
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:ESP104817-06Filed Date:02/12/2007

Opening Event Date:02/12/2007Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:04/20/2007

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
PetitionerIsang Umoren NPro SeN
RespondentAdpress InternationalNPro SeN
RespondentD.C. Department of Employment Services - UnemploymentN
Michael A. MilweeNN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
02/12/2007PETITION FOR REVIEW - FILED PER 3/15/07 ORDER LW
02/26/2007RECEIVED - from pro se petitioner a duplicate pleading (Date Stamped for 2/12/07). Titled: Motion to Permit Judicial Review - pleading will be returned by mail to petitioner.
03/02/2007 ORDERED that petitioner shall within 20 days from the date of this order TENDER THE $100 FILING FEE, or complete and file with this court the attached motion to proceed on appeal IFP and financial information statement. See D.C. App. R. 24 (b). It is *****MORE*****
03/02/2007 FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall within 20 days from the date of this order SHOW CAUSE why this petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as having been untimely filed. See D.C. App. R. 15 (a)(2). It is *****MORE*****
03/02/2007 FURTHER ORDERED that the LODGED petition for review is HEREBY HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this court. (BY: ETW) lw
03/02/2007TMC - (LODGED) petition - OTSC - ROTSC
03/07/2007RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (dated 3/2/07)
03/07/2007PETITIONER'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
03/15/2007 ORDERED that the MOTION TO PROCEED IFP is GRANTED and the Clerk SHALL FILE the LODGED petition. It is *****MORE*****
03/15/2007 FURTHER ORDERED that this PETITION is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as having been untimely filed. Petitioner is wrong when he claims that a petition may be filed within a rational period of time. The rules of this court clearly require filing within 30 days of the underlying order unless an applicable statutory framework provides otherwise, see D.C. App. R. 15 (b), and we are aware of no framework that would permit the petitioner to file this petition more than six months late. (KRPRST)
03/15/2007DISMISSED
03/20/2007 RECEIVED-Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Titled: Answer to Order) to this Court's order ated 3/15/07 will be returned by mail. The plead ng requires a certificate of service to be included.
04/03/2007PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL (titled as: revised answer to order)
04/05/2007TMC - petitioner's motion to reinstate
04/11/2007 ORDERED that petitioner's MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS DENIED. Petitioner's revised answer is identical to his initial response and both are incorrect in asserting that a petition for review may be filed witin any reasonable time. Such time is controlled by the rules of this court, see D.C. App. R. 15 9a)(2), and petitioner may not disregard those rules at will. See MacLeod v. Georgetown Univ., 736 A.2d 977, 979 (D.C. 1999)(a pro se litigant is bound by an {must} conform to the rules of court procedure....) It is *****MORE*****
04/11/2007 FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk WILL ACCEPT NO FURTHER PRO SE SUBMISSIONS seeking to reinstate, reconsider, or reopen this matter. See Corley v. U.S., 7412 A.2d 1029, 1030-31 (D.C. 1999). (KRPRST)
04/17/2007RECEIVED - aplt's motion to not reconsider dismissal sent back re: 4/11/07 barring order
04/20/2007MANDATE ISSUED
05/07/2007RECEIVED - petitoner's revised motion to not reconsider dismissal sent back re: 4/11/07 barring order
08/10/2011FiledArchived