Melendez v. Berryhill
| Christina E. Melendez |
| Nancy A. Berryhill |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2019cv00732 |
| May 14, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 0405 dc |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 10, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiff's dispositive motion is due by 9/9/2019. See attached order for important instructions. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 7/12/2019. (Fries, J.)
|
| Filing 13 Social Security Transcripts by Nancy A. Berryhill. (Pollack, Kathryn) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. In light of this ruling plaintiff's #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and the Court's 8 Recommended Ruling are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 6/13/2019. (Fries, J.)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathryn Pollack on behalf of Nancy A. Berryhill (Pollack, Kathryn) |
| Filing 10 Second MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Christina E. Melendez. (Katz, Ivan) |
| Filing 9 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Nancy A. Berryhill, Christina E. Melendez. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson. This matter has been transferred to a magistrate judge. All non-efiled submissions should be filed at the seat of court where the magistrate judge presides. The case number will remain the same, but must be followed by the magistrate judge's initials. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 5/17/2019.(Anastasio, F.) |
|
Filing 8
RECOMMENDED RULING. The Court recommends that plaintiff's #3 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. #3 . That sworn statement, however, is incomplete, leaving the Court unable to fully assess plaintiff's financial circumstances. Although plaintiff states that she is unable to pay the filing fee under the pains and penalties of perjury, plaintiff has left the form affidavit nearly entirely blank, providing no information regarding how she supports herself, nor her monthly expenses. See id. at 3-5. Plaintiff states only that she has been unemployed since 2012. See id. at 3. "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 #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff shall re-file her motion or pay the required filing fee on or before May 30, 2019, or this case may be dismissed. If plaintiff chooses to re-file her motion, she must complete all of the required information. While plaintiff may indicate that her income is "$0" or that a particular question does not apply to her situation, she may not leave significant sections of the affidavit form entirely blank.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 5/16/19. (Dowie, C)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 5/14/2019.(Reis, Julia)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 5/14/2019.(Reis, Julia)
|
|
Filing 5
Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 5/14/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Reis, Julia)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE re: Consent to Magistrate Judge by Christina E. Melendez (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Christina E. Melendez. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan Michael Katz on behalf of Christina E. Melendez (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Nancy A. Berryhill, filed by Christina E. Melendez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Reis, Julia) |
| Answer deadline updated for Nancy A. Berryhill to 7/13/2019. (Reis, Julia) |
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.
