Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Ngola Santos |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2019cv00531 |
| April 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Jeffrey A Meyer |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. § 405 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 26, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
ORDER RE SCHEDULING. This matter has been transferred to the docket of Judge Meyer. The parties shall adhere to the scheduling order which requires plaintiff to file her briefing on or before August 9, 2019 and for the Commissioner to file briefing on or before October 8, 2019. The parties are advised that the Court may enter an adverse order of dismissal or denial if they fail to comply with the Court's scheduling order. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/26/2019.(Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, the case is reassigned to Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 6/25/2019.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 19
SCHEDULING ORDER:The Government having filed its administrative record (Doc. No. 15), the court hereby enters the following Scheduling Order:Plaintiff shall file a motion to reverse and/or remand, supporting memorandum of law, and statement of material facts on or before August 9, 2019. Defendant shall file a motion to affirm or a motion for voluntary remand, supporting memorandum of law, and statement of material facts on or before October 8, 2019. Plaintiff may file a reply brief pursuant to Local Rule 7(d) on or before October 22, 2019. Prior to the filing of any dispositive motions, counsel are encouraged to confer regarding the merits of the case in an effort to determine whether a reversal and voluntary remand are appropriate. The court reminds the parties of the previously filed Standing Scheduling Order which sets forth page limits, form and content requirements for motions, supporting memoranda, and statement of material facts (Doc. No. 4.) The parties should avoid boilerplate discussions of the governing legal standards as the court is familiar with the standard of review and the sequential evaluation process employed in the analysis of Social Security disability applications. The parties should focus on informing the court of relevant and controlling legal authority and applying it to the facts of this case. Motions filed by the parties must comply with the requirements set forth above and in the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to comply may result in denial of the motion.Requests for extensions of these deadlines are discouraged and, unless unusual circumstances dictate otherwise, counsel should not seek an extension of greater than 30 days. Any motion for extension of a deadline must include a showing of good cause as required by Local Rule 7(b)(2) and must be filed at least three days before the existing deadline. Dispositive Motions due by 8/9/2019 Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/11/19. (Caldero, M.)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER finding as moot 8 Recommended Ruling. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/10/19. (Caldero, M.)
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER finding as moot #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/10/19. (Caldero, M.)
|
|
Filing 16
REMINDER: Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/10/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 15 Social Security Transcripts by Commissioner of Social Security. (Morrison, Graham) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed an #10 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis in response to the Court's April 15, 2019, Order regarding his originally filed motion (Doc. #7). Plaintiff's amended motion largely corrects and/or explains the inconsistencies and/or erroneous information that was included in his original motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's #10 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis based on the financial information provided. The allegations in the amended motion are sufficient to establish that plaintiff is unable to pay the ordinary filing fees required by the Court. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1).Nevertheless, the Court notes that plaintiff has recently settled two cases in this District. See Santos v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 18CV1394(VAB), Doc. #32 (D. Conn. May 28, 2019); Santos v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., No. 17CV1181(MPS), Doc. #112 (D. Conn. Dec. 27, 2018). The Court presumes that any financial payments received as a result of those settlements have been reported on plaintiff's #10 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, which is sworn to "under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that [the information in the motion] is true and correct to the best of [plaintiff's] knowledge and belief." Doc. #10 at 5.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 6/7/2019. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, #9 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 6/7/2019. (Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Graham Morrison on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Morrison, Graham) |
| Filing 11 OBJECTION to 8 Recommended Ruling filed by Ngola Santos. (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 10 Amended MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ngola Santos. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Extension of Time by Ngola Santos. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Reis, Julia) |
|
Filing 8
RECOMMENDED RULING. On April 9, 2019, the self-represented plaintiff filed a #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. On April 15, 2019, the undersigned entered an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on or before April 29, 2019. See Doc. #7. The Court ordered the filing of an amended motion because of inconsistencies within plaintiff's current motion, and inconsistencies between the current motion and motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that plaintiff had filed in other cases in this District. See id. The Court directed plaintiff to "correct and/or explain any erroneous information provided in the current motion." Id. To date, plaintiff has failed to file an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as ordered by the Court. Without the information ordered to be provided, the Court is unable to assess plaintiff's financial circumstances. For example, as previously noted by the Court: "Plaintiff also states that he has $7,000 in stocks and bonds, but it is unclear to the Court whether plaintiff has ready access to those assets." Id. (internal citation omitted). "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).Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the required filing fee on or before June 3, 2019, or this case may be dismissed.This is a recommended ruling. 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); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 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 5/6/2019. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER re: #2 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which motion includes a sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . Although plaintiff has completed that form, before the Court can rule on plaintiff's motion, the Court will require further clarification of the information provided.Plaintiff lists three cases that he has previously filed in this District. See id. at 5. In each of those cases plaintiff applied for, and was granted, in forma pauperis status. See 18CV1394(VAB); 18CV1515(VAB); 17CV1181(MPS). There are some inconsistencies between the motions filed in those cases and the one currently pending before the Court. For example, here, plaintiff attests that his last received monthly income was $3,800. See Doc. #2 at 2. However in plaintiff's other cases he attests that his last received monthly income was $4,800. See, e.g., 18CV1394(VAB), Doc. #2 at 3; 18CV1515(VAB), Doc. #2 at 2. Plaintiff also stated in a prior application that he was receiving $200 per month in benefits, but makes no mention of any such benefits in this case. Compare, 18CV1515(VAB), Doc. #2 at 2, with Doc. #2 at 2.Other inconsistencies within the application in this case also hinder the Court's evaluation of whether plaintiff is entitled to in forma pauperis status. For example, although plaintiff claims that he pays $200 per month for a "second mortgage," he states that he does not own real property. See Doc. #2 at 2-3. Plaintiff also states that he has $7,000 in stocks and bonds, see id. at 3, but it is unclear to the Court whether plaintiff has ready access to those assets. Plaintiff did not disclose any stocks and bonds on his in forma pauperis applications filed in 2018. Accordingly, the Court will require plaintiff to file an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The amended motion shall correct and/or explain any erroneous information provided in the current motion. The amended motion shall also identify any real property owned by plaintiff, and the nature of the stocks and bonds owned by plaintiff, including whether plaintiff has ready access to those assets. Plaintiff shall file an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on or before April 29, 2019. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 4/15/2019.(Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 6 Notice to Self-represented Parties Signed by Clerk on 4/10/2019.(Anastasio, F.) |
| Answer deadline updated for Commissioner of Social Security to 6/9/2019. Service made by Clerk via email. (Anastasio, F.) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 4/9/2019.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 4
Standing Scheduling Order Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 4/9/2019.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 3
Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 4/9/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ngola Santos. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Ngola Santos.(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.
