Chambers et al v. Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff: A. C. and Gwendolyn Chambers
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Interested Party: Social Security Administration
Case Number: 3:2019cv01865
Filed: November 22, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Sarah A L Merriam
Referring Judge: Stefan R Underhill
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER Extending Deadlines sua sponte. Defendant's Answer deadline is due by February 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/16/20.(Caldero, M.)
January 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER re 8 RECOMMENDED RULING denying #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Gwendolyn Chambers, 7 Order. The plaintiff is put on notice that she must correct the deficiencies noted in doc. #7 and doc. #8, within 14 days of this Order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of her case. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/16/20. (Caldero, M.)
January 16, 2020 Answer deadline updated for All Defendants. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/3/2020.(Caldero, M.)
January 16, 2020 Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dismissal due by 1/30/2020. (Caldero, M.)
December 27, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER terminating #11 Motion for Extension of Time. The self-represented plaintiff has filed a "motion for extension of time" stating that she seeks an extension of time "to respond to defendants' motion for summary jud[.]" Doc. #11 at 1. It is unclear to what plaintiff refers, as no motion has been filed by the Commissioner. There are two pending deadlines in this case, requiring responses from plaintiff. The Court previously noted that plaintiff's Complaint "is missing certain important information" including "the date on which the Appeals Council issued its decision." Doc. #7. The Court needs that information. Accordingly, the Court order that plaintiff file "an amended complaint that includes the date on which the Appeals Council issued its decision[]" or "a copy of the Appeals Council decision." Doc. #7. The deadline for plaintiff to respond to this order was December 26, 2019. The Court also recommended that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, without prejudice, for failure to provide complete information. See Doc. #8. The deadline for plaintiff to respond to that recommended ruling was also December 26, 2019. As the Court has previously advised plaintiff, failure to comply with the deadlines and orders set by the Court may result in the dismissal of this case. The Court hereby extends the deadlines for plaintiff to respond to the Court's orders, summarized above, to and including January 10, 2020. Planitiff must respond by that deadline, or risk dismissal of the case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/27/19. (Merriam, Sarah)
December 26, 2019 Filing 11 MOTION for Extension of Time of Thirty Days by Gwendolyn Chambers. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Bozek, M.)
December 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 10 REMINDER: Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 12/19/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
December 18, 2019 Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Nahid Sorooshyari on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Sorooshyari, Nahid)
December 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 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 as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . That statement, however, is incomplete, leaving the Court unable to assess plaintiff's financial circumstances. Specifically, although plaintiff represents that she is employed, she does not provide any information about her current income. 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); Schwarz v. I.R.S., 998 F. Supp. 201, 202 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying application to proceed in forma pauperis based on incomplete affidavit). 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 December 26, 2019, or this case may be dismissed. If plaintiff chooses to re-file her motion she must complete all of the required information, including her current salary received, any monthly obligations, any other sources of financial support, or any other information that is pertinent to her financial status. Plaintiff may indicate that her obligations are "$0" or that a particular question does not apply to her situation, but 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 after the filing of this ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "Any party receiving notice of an order or recommended ruling from the Clerk by mail shall have five (5) additional days to file any objection." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a). Plaintiff receives notice by mail. Accordingly, any objection must be filed on or before December 26, 2019. Failure to file an objection within this time frame 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(a); 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). Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/5/2019. (Katz, S.)
December 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER. The self-represented plaintiff has filed a Complaint for Review of Social Security Administration Decision. (Doc. #1 ). The Complaint is missing certain important information, however. Specifically, plaintiff has not provided the date on which the Appeals Council issued its decision. See id. at 2. Without that information, the Court is unable to ascertain whether plaintiff has fully exhausted her administrative remedies and/or timely filed this action.Accordingly, on or before December 26, 2019, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that includes the date on which the Appeals Council issued its decision. Alternatively, on or before December 26, 2019, plaintiff may file a copy of the Appeals Council decision.Failure to comply with the directives in this Order may result in the dismissal of the Complaint. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/5/2019. (Katz, S.)
November 26, 2019 Filing 6 Notice to Self-represented Parties. Signed by Clerk on 11/26/2019.(Bozek, M.)
November 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 11/22/2019.(Bozek, M.)
November 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 Standing Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 11/22/2019.(Bozek, M.)
November 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Standing Order on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 11/22/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Bozek, M.)
November 22, 2019 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Gwendolyn Chambers. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(Bozek, M.)
November 22, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Gwendolyn Chambers. (Attachments: #1 Section 504 Accomodation Plan)(Bozek, M.)
November 22, 2019 Answer deadline updated for Commissioner of Social Security to 1/21/2020. (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 this case: Chambers et al v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: A. C.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gwendolyn Chambers
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By: Nahid Sorooshyari
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Interested party: Social Security Administration
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?