Elliott Sims v. Saul et al
| Karen Ann Elliott Sims |
| Andrew Saul |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2019cv00884 |
| June 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. § 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, the case is reassigned to Judge Kari A. Dooley for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 7/10/2019.(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing fee received from Melissa Buckley: $ 400.00, receipt number 153351 (Pesta, J.) |
|
Filing 11
RECOMMENDED RULING. The Court recommends that plaintiff's #10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, costs or security therefor, which includes an affidavit regarding her current financial circumstances. See Doc. #10 . In plaintiff's motion, she states that she is married and has one adult child. See Doc. #10 -1 at 1. Plaintiff has been unemployed since 2013, but her spouse earns a monthly income of $5,416. See id. at 2. This income covers the family's monthly expenses, and the family has significant assets, including a home owned outright by plaintiff's husband, and cash on hand sufficient to pay the filing fee. See id. at 3. The Court notes that plaintiff's sworn statement asserts that the family spends $1,727 per month on food, including "cleaning supplies, toiletries, tissues [and] take out meals" for a family of three (which includes an 18-year old child, but no minor children). See id. at 4. By adding this exact amount to the claimed monthly expenses, plaintiff is able to assert that her family's monthly expenses precisely equal the family's monthly income. Compare id. at 2 with id. at 4. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) allows a court to authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of fees only when "the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) (emphasis added). The allegations in plaintiff's affidavit are insufficient to establish plaintiff's inability to pay the ordinary filing fees required by the Court. See id.. Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiff's #10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this matter, she must pay the required filing fee on or before July 31, 2019. 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 6/28/19. (Dowie, C)
|
| Filing 10 Second MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Karen Ann Elliott Sims. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Buckley, Melissa) |
|
Filing 9
REMINDER: STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/21/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Graham Morrison on behalf of Andrew Saul (Morrison, Graham) |
|
Filing 7
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 statement relating to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 -1. That statement, however, has multiple deficiencies. First, plaintiff has not signed the statement, as required, under the pains and penalties of perjury. The words "to the best of my knowledge and belief[]" have been underlined where they appear on the form affidavit, and there is a mark on the line for the "Original Signature of Affiant[,]" but the mark does not appear to be a signature. Compare id. at 5 with id. at 1, 5. 28 U.S.C. 1915 provides that the Court "may authorize the commencement" of an action "without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). The requirement of a sworn statement is an essential part of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Copen, 378 F. Supp. 99, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) ("Leave to proceed in forma pauperis may be obtainable only upon submission by the party of an affidavit made as required by that statute."). Additionally, plaintiff's submission is substantively deficient. Plaintiff states that she has been unemployed since 2013, but states that her current spouse earns $5,040 per month, and that he and his mother own the home in which plaintiff and her spouse reside. See Doc. #2 -1 at 3, 5. "[I]n ruling on motions to proceed in forma pauperis, other courts have considered the income of interested persons, such as spouses and parents, in evaluating the funds available to the movant." Monti v. McKeon, 600 F. Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984), aff'd, 788 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1985). The only expenses plaintiff lists are $72 in monthly obligations related to her daughter's medical and dental care, and plaintiff states that her "Ex-Husband was supposed to pay $77.00 per week in Child Support; he has stopped paying any near the court order about two years ago." Doc. #2-1 at 5. By failing to list any other expenses, such as amounts spent on food or utilities each month, plaintiff has indicated that she and her current spouse have nearly $5,000 per month in discretionary income, well in excess of the filing fee. "The purpose of 28 U.S.C. 1915 is to insure that litigants will not be deprived of access to the judicial system because of their financial circumstances. If the plaintiff is supported by her spouse, and her spouse is financially able to pay the costs of this [action], it follows that the plaintiff's own lack of funds will not prevent her from gaining access to the courts. Where funds to pursue an [action] are readily available to a plaintiff, she should not be permitted to maintain an [action] at the taxpayers' expense." Monti, 600 F. Supp. at 114. 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 her motion or pay the required filing fee on or before July 2, 2019, or this case may be dismissed. If plaintiff chooses to re-file her motion, she must complete all of the required information, or advise the Court why her current husband's income is not available to plaintiff. Plaintiff must also, as required by statute, submit her financial information in a sworn statement. 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 6/11/19. (Dowie, C)
|
| Filing 6 Docket Entry Correction re #3 Standing Order on Social Security Appeals, ADDED PDF, Consent Form (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) (Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/6/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/6/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 6/6/2019.(Fazekas, J.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/10/2019: #1 ADDED PDF - Consent Form) (Fazekas, J.).
|
| Answer deadline updated for Andrew Saul to 8/5/2019. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 First MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Karen Ann Elliott Sims. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Buckley, Melissa) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Karen Ann Elliott Sims.(Buckley, Melissa) |
| Judge Stefan R Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Oliver, T.) |
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.
