(SS) Dawson v Commissioner of Social Security
| Jaime S. Dawson |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| 2:2024cv02407 |
| September 4, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Dennis M Cota |
| Dale A Drozd |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1383 Review of HHS Decision |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 22, 2025. 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 Certification Page, #2 Court Transcript Index, #3 Documents Related to Administrative Process, #4 Payment Documents, #5 Jurisdictional Documents, #6 Non Disability Related Development, #7 Disability Related Development, #8 Medical Records Part 1, #9 Medical Records Part 2, #10 Administrative Record in OCR Format) (Olsen, Edward) |
Filing 9
ORDER by Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley: The Court having considered the equitable division and efficient and economical determination of court business, hereby reassigns this case from District Judge *Kimberly J. Mueller* to * District Judge Dale A. Drozd* for all further proceedings. (Donati, J)
|
| Filing 8 CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION : DISREGARD #7 Social Security New Case Documents for DJ. Issued in error. (Lopez, K) |
| Filing 7 [DISREGARD ISSUED IN ERROR] AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER RE CONSENT in SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL Consent or Decline due by 12/16/2024. (Attachments: #1 Order re Consent, #2 Consent Form) (Lopez, K) |
| Filing 6 CLERK'S NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE (TEXT ONLY). This case has been assigned to Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller and Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. The new case number is: 2:24-cv-2407 KJM DMC. (Lopez, K) |
| Filing 5 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. (Martin, Justin) |
| Filing 4 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. (Sackett, Harvey) |
|
Filing 3
SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER RE CONSENT in SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL. Consent or Decline due by 12/9/2024. [Served by Clerk on Commissioner via E-Service Agreement] (Attachments: #1 Order re Consent, #2 Consent Form) (Licea Chavez, V)
|
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Commissioner of Social Security* with answer to complaint due within *60* days. Attorney *Harvey Peter Sackett* *Sackett & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation* *1055 Lincoln Ave* *San Jose, CA 95125*. [Served by Clerk on Commissioner via E-Service Agreement] (Licea Chavez, V) |
| PAYMENT for Civil Case filing fee in the amount of $ 405, receipt number ACAEDC-11731038. (Sackett, Harvey) |
| Filing 1 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT For Judicial Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security against Commissioner of Social Security by Jaime S. Dawson. Attorney Sackett, Harvey Peter added. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Sackett, Harvey) |
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.
