Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Eastern District Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Darrell Curtis Sanders
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	2:2017cv00605
Filed:	March 22, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office:	Sacramento Office
County:	Sacramento
Presiding Judge:	Kendall J. Newman
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 205
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 31, 2018	Filing 26 STIPULATION and ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/30/18. The court makes no finding with respect to footnote 1 in the stipulation.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
April 10, 2017	Filing 3 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/10/2017 ORDERING that plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Service of process is appropriate for the Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of the Court is directed to s erve the undersigned's scheduling order. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit service documents to the United States Marshal and shall file a statement with the court that such documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal. The United States Marshal is directed to serve all process without prepayment of costs not later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order. (Zignago, K.)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 31, 2018

Filing 26 STIPULATION and ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/30/18. The court makes no finding with respect to footnote 1 in the stipulation.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

April 10, 2017

Filing 3 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/10/2017 ORDERING that plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Service of process is appropriate for the Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of the Court is directed to s erve the undersigned's scheduling order. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit service documents to the United States Marshal and shall file a statement with the court that such documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal. The United States Marshal is directed to serve all process without prepayment of costs not later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order. (Zignago, K.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Darrell Curtis Sanders
Represented By:	Denise Bourgeois Haley
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By:	Marcelo N. Illarmo
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?