(SS) Cutcher v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Amanda J. Cutcher |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| 2:2021cv00908 |
| May 19, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Jeremy D Peterson |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Rosales, Steven) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Amanda J. Cutcher. Commissioner of Social Security served on 6/9/2021, answer due 8/9/2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Rosales, Steven) |
Filing 5
ORDER RE CONSENT in SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL; Consent or Decline due by 9/2/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) (Zignago, K.)
|
| Filing 4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Commissioner of Social Security* with answer to complaint due within *60* days. Attorney *Steven Gilbert Rosales* *Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing* *12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115* *Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670*. (Zignago, K.) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/31/2021 GRANTING #2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Within 14 days, plaintiff shall submit service documents to the US Marshal and shall file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the US Marshal. The US Marshal is directed to serve all process without prepayment of costs not later than sixty days from the date of this order. The parties are hereby notified that, after service of the complaint, this action will be stayed pursuant to General Order Number 615, and there will be no scheduling order or deadlines in effect pending further order of the court. The Clerk is directed to issue the Consent/Decline forms only. Under General Order 615, no briefing schedule will issue at this time. (Zignago, K.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Amanda J. Cutcher. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Rosales, Steven) |
| Filing 1 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security by Amanda J. Cutcher. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of interested parties, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rosales, Steven) |
| APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP filed - Court Action Required. (Benson, A.) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: (SS) Cutcher 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: Amanda J. Cutcher | |
| Represented By: | Steven Gilbert Rosales |
| 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 | |
| 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.
