Borrero v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Gil Borrero |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2019cv01306 |
| August 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| William I Garfinkel |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. § 0405 dc |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until November 20, 2019to file certified administrative record by Commissioner of Social Security. (Kaiser, Fergus) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Veronica A. Halpine on behalf of Gil Borrero (Halpine, Veronica) |
| Filing 15 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Gil Borrero, Commissioner of Social Security. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel. 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 9/26/2019.(Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE re: Consent to Magistrate Judge by Gil Borrero. (Bozek, M.) |
Filing 13
REMINDER: STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 9/13/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Fergus Kaiser on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Kaiser, Fergus) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court previously granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. #7. The grant was conditioned on the filing of a completed affidavit. Plaintiff has now filed a fully completed affidavit, confirming his financial situation, and the Court accepts that affidavit. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 09/09/2019. (Spangenburg, S.)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying, without prejudice to re-filing, #8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel.The Second Circuit has "held that in determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant a district court judge should first consider whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance, then assess the litigant's competence to proceed pro se, the complexity of the issues, and additionally any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination." Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 10708 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, because the administrative transcript has not yet been filed, and where the #1 Complaint provides little detail, plaintiff has failed to make a threshold showing of likelihood of merit. See Maldonado ex rel. Maldonado v. Apfel, 55 F. Supp. 2d 296, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("Without a record, the merits cannot be evaluated. Private counsel cannot be expected to become interested in a case of unknown merit. And under Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986), there is not even a proper basis for the Court to appoint pro bono counsel because a court cannot determine whether the case seems likely to be of substance." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).The Second Circuit has also made clear that before appointment of counsel may be considered, the movant must demonstrate that he is unable to obtain counsel on his own. See Saviano v. Local 32B-32J, 75 F. App'x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's motion indicates that he has made no efforts to obtain counsel on his own. See Doc. #8 at 4-5. "Since the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is unable to secure legal assistance or representation on his own, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewal of this motion shall be accompanied by a summary of the plaintiff's attempts to secure legal assistance or representation and the reasons why assistance was unavailable." Gulley v. Dzurenda, 686 F. Supp. 2d 173, 174 (D. Conn. 2010) (citation to docket omitted).Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff may re-file his motion after defendant has filed the administrative transcript and upon a showing that he has attempted, without success, to obtain counsel. Until and unless counsel appears on his behalf, plaintiff must be prepared to pursue this matter as a self-represented party, and to comply with all rules and deadlines of the Court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 09/09/2019. (Spangenburg, S.)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Gil Borrero. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam.(Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Gil Borrero. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, costs or security therefor, which includes an affidavit regarding his current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . In plaintiff's affidavit, he states that he is currently homeless, and owns no real property. See id. at 3, 4. However, the remainder of the form, including information regarding past employment, other income, and expenses, is blank. In light of plaintiff's claim of homelessness, the Court will allow the case to proceed. However, the grant of in forma pauperis is conditioned upon plaintiff filing a complete affidavit. On or before September 16, 2019, plaintiff shall file an affidavit in support of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he fully completes each question presented on the form. While plaintiff may state that a specific question does not apply to his situation, or answer by stating that a specific asset or expense is $0, he may not leave significant sections of the form completely blank. Failure to file the completed affidavit may result in dismissal of this action. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/26/19. (Dowie, C)
|
| Filing 6 Notice to Self-represented Parties. Signed by Clerk on 8/23/2019.(Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/22/2019.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 4
Standing Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/22/2019.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 3
Standing Order on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/22/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Gil Borrero. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Gil Borrero.(Bozek, M.) |
| Answer deadline updated for Commissioner of Social Security to 10/21/2019. (Bozek, M.) |
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.
