(SS) King v. Commissioner of Social Security
| David Alan King |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| 2:2023cv00116 |
| January 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Kendall J Newman |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 Denial Social Security Benefits |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF LODGING SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSCRIPT IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT by Commissioner of Social Security. Attorney Olsen, Edward Alan added. (Attachments: #1 Complete Certified Administrative Record)(Olsen, Edward) |
Filing 9
CONSENT MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) signed by Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/8/2023: All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in this action, including trial and entry of judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). Accordingly, this Court AUTHORIZES the action to proceed before the assigned United States Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment. All further papers filed in this action shall bear the case number 2:23-CV-116 KJN.(Reader, L)
|
| Filing 8 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. (Weems, Robert) |
| 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. (Marriott, Michael) |
| Filing 6 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Michael K. Marriott, GOVT for Commissioner of Social Security, attorney Social Security Admin- SS E-Service terminated (Marriott, Michael) |
|
Filing 5
SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER RE CONSENT in SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL. Consent or Decline due by 5/11/2023. [Served by Clerk on Commissioner via E-Service Agreement] (Attachments: #1 Order re Consent, #2 Consent Form) (Reader, L)
|
| Filing 4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Commissioner of Social Security* with answer to complaint due within *90* days. Attorney *Robert C. Weems* *Weems Law Offices* *526 3rd Street, Suite A-2* *San Rafael, California 94901*. [Served by Clerk on Commissioner via E-Service Agreement] (Reader, L) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/6/2023 GRANTING #2 Motion to Proceed IFP. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue, a summons for this case pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security actions, the undersigned's scheduling order, and the court's order regarding consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. [Served by Clerk on Commissioner via E-Service Agreement] (Reader, L)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by David Alan King. (Weems, Robert) |
| APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP filed - Court Action Required. (Licea Chavez, V) |
| Filing 1 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security by David Alan King. Attorney Weems, Robert added. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Weems, Robert) |
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
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.
