Munoz Robles v. Saul et al
| Raymond Alexis Munoz Robles |
| Andrew M. Saul and Social Security Administration |
| 3:2019cv01329 |
| August 28, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| William I Garfinkel |
| 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 September 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
SCHEDULING ORDER. The Government having filed the administrative record, the Court hereby enters the following Scheduling Order: Plaintiff shall file a motion to reverse and/or remand and supporting memorandum of law no later than 60 days from the date the answer was filed. Defendant shall then have 60 days to file a motion to affirm or a motion for voluntary remand. Within 14 days after Defendant files its motion, Plaintiff may file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 7(d). 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 and form and content requirements for motions and supporting memoranda. In addition to complying with these requirements, memoranda 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, in the Standing Scheduling Order, 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 thirty (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 (3) days before the existing deadline. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 10/25/19.(Esposito, A.)
|
| Filing 11 Social Security Transcripts by Andrew M. Saul. (Attachments: #1 002 Court Transcript Index, #2 003 Documents Related to Administrative Process Including Transcript of Oral Hearing, if applicable, #3 004 Payment Documents and Decisions, #4 005 Jurisdictional Documents and Notices, #5 006 Non Disability Related Development, #6 007 Disability Related Development, #7 008 Medical Records Part 1, #8 009 Medical Records Part 2, #9 010 Medical Records Part 3)(Myers, Lauren) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren E. Myers on behalf of Andrew M. Saul (Myers, Lauren) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #4 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. #4 . Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford to pay fees and costs, having no income, minimal assets and outstanding monthly obligations. See generally id. at 3-5. At this stage, such allegations 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). Accordingly, plaintiff's #4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, the Court notes that plaintiff did not fully complete the financial affidavit in support of his motion. For example, although plaintiff states that he is unemployed, he does not provide the dates of his last employment. See Doc. #4 at 4. Additionally, although plaintiff states that he has nearly $2,000 per month in obligations, he lists no other sources of income or support. See id. at 3-5. Any future motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be completed in its entirety, or said motion may be denied without prejudice. See e.g., Schwarz v. I.R.S., 998 F. Supp. 201, 202 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying application to proceed in forma pauperis as incomplete where plaintiff failed to complete application).It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/29/2019. (Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 8 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Raymond Alexis Munoz Robles, Andrew M. Saul. 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 8/29/2018.(Anastasio, F.) |
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/28/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/28/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/28/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Judge Stefan R Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
| Answer deadline updated for Andrew M. Saul to 10/28/2019. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Raymond Alexis Munoz Robles. (Katz, Ivan) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Raymond Alexis Munoz Robles of consent to USMJ Jurisdiction (Katz, Ivan) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan Michael Katz on behalf of Raymond Alexis Munoz Robles (Katz, Ivan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew M. Saul, filed by Raymond Alexis Munoz Robles.(Katz, Ivan) |
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.
