ISANG UMOREN V. D.C. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Case Information: 07-AA-0054
Short Caption:	ISANG UMOREN V. D.C. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	Classification:	Agency - Administrative Agency - OAH - Human Services
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:	HSP100865-06	Filed Date:	02/12/2007
Opening Event Date:	02/12/2007	Case Status:	Closed
Record Completed:		Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:		Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:	04/20/2007

Events
Event Date	Status	Description	Result
02/12/2007		PETITION FOR REVIEW - FILED PER 3/15/07 ORDER LW
02/26/2007		RECEIVED - from pro se petitioner duplicate pleading (Date Stamped for 2/12/07) Titled: Motion to Allow Judicial Review. The pleading will be returned to petitioner by mail.
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 the attached motion to proceed IFP and financial statement. See D.C. App. R. 24 (b). It is *****MORE****
03/02/2007		FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall wtihin 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 is HEREBY HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this court. (BY: ETW) lw
03/02/2007		TMC - (LODGED) petition - OTSC - ROTSC
03/07/2007		RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (dated 3/2/07)
03/07/2007		PETITIONER'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
03/15/2007		ORDERED taht 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 nearly a year late. (KRPRST)
03/15/2007		DISMISSED
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.
04/03/2007		PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL (titled as: revised answer to order)
04/05/2007		TMC - revised answer to order to show cause
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)
04/20/2007		MANDATE ISSUED
08/10/2011	Filed	Archived