Gaskin v. Berryhill
| Loyal Barry Gaskin, Jr. |
| Nancy A. Berryhill |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2018cv01978 |
| December 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Approving and Adopting 8 Recommended Ruling. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the required filing fee and for failure to re-file the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 1/24/2019. (Jaiman, R.)
|
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Jaiman, R.) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 1/9/2019. (Jaiman, R.)
|
| Filing 10 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 8 RECOMMENDED RULING. Responses due by 1/23/2019 (Jaiman, R.) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER adopting in part 8 Recommended Ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to file the required information or pay the filing fee within fourteen (14) days of this order or this case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 1/9/19. (Caldero, M.)
|
|
Filing 8
RECOMMENDED RULING. The Court recommends that plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which motion includes a sworn statement relating to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . That sworn statement, however, is incomplete, leaving the Court unable to fully assess plaintiff's financial circumstances. Although plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the filing fee under the pains and penalties of perjury, plaintiff provides no information regarding his current or former income or how he supports himself. See id. at 3. Plaintiff states only that he has no assets and no monthly obligations. See generally, id. at 3-5. "The court may deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis if [the applicant] fails to submit the required financial information[.]" Whatley v. Astrue, No. 5:11CV1009(NAM)(ATB), 2011 WL 5222908, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 5196716 (Oct. 31, 2011) (citation omitted); see also Schwarz v. I.R.S., 998 F. Supp. 201, 202 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying application to proceed in forma pauperis where plaintiff failed to complete application). Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff shall re-file his motion or pay the required filing fee on or before December 21, 2018, or this case may be dismissed. If plaintiff chooses to re-file his motion, he must complete all of the required information. While plaintiff may indicate that his income is "$0" or that a particular question does not apply to his situation, he may not leave significant sections of the affidavit form entirely blank. If plaintiff has previously been employed, he must provide information regarding that employment where requested.This is a recommended ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of being served with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within fourteen (14) days will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2; Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/7/18. (Dowie, C) Modified on 1/9/2019 (Jaiman, R.).
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 12/5/2018.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 6
Standing Scheduling Order Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 12/5/2018.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 5
Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 12/5/2018. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 4 Notice re: Consent to Magistrate Judge by Loyal Barry Gaskin, Jr (Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan Michael Katz on behalf of Loyal Barry Gaskin, Jr (Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Loyal Barry Gaskin, Jr. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Anastasio, F.) Modified on 12/7/2018 (Pesta, J.). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Nancy A. Berryhill, filed by Loyal Barry Gaskin, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Anastasio, F.) |
| Answer deadline updated for Nancy A. Berryhill to 2/3/2019. (Anastasio, F.) |
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 Connecticut 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.
