Blue v. Saul
Plaintiff: Dayle Blue
Defendant: Andrew Saul
Interested Party: Social Security Administration
Case Number: 3:2020cv00359
Filed: March 16, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Thomas O Farrish
Referring Judge: Sarah A L Merriam
2 Judge: Stefan R Underhill
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1383
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 24, 2020 Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Fitzhugh Nicol on behalf of Andrew Saul (Nicol, Fitzhugh)
March 20, 2020 Filing 10 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Dayle Blue, Andrew Saul. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish. 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 3/20/2020.(Anastasio, F.)
March 19, 2020 Filing 9 NOTICE by Dayle Blue Consent to Reference to a Magistrate Judge (Halpine, Veronica)
March 19, 2020 Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Dayle Blue.(Halpine, Veronica)
March 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint for review of a decision of the Social Security Administration (Doc. #1 ). Any civil actions brought in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) are subject to the Standing Scheduling Order Social Security Cases ("Standing Order"), which has been docketed in this case. See Doc. #4 . The Standing Order sets forth a number of rules, including that "[a]ll Complaints filed pursuant to this Order shall state the Plaintiff's full Social Security Number." Id. at 2. The Commissioner cannot prepare the Administrative Record without this information. "The Certified Administrative Record and all other filings are exempt from any redaction requirements." Id. Plaintiff's Complaint does not include her full social security number, rendering the Complaint insufficient. See Doc. #1 at 1. Accordingly, on or before April 1, 2020, plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint that corrects this deficiency, and that otherwise complies with all requirements of the Standing Order. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/18/2020. (Scholfield, D.)
March 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER granting #2 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. #2 . Plaintiff has completed the required information. She asserts that she is unable to afford to pay fees and costs, having no income, minimal assets and outstanding debt. See generally id. at 3-5. Plaintiff indicates that she has been unemployed since March of 2019, and that she receives government benefits, including SNAP benefits. See id. at 3. Plaintiff also indicates that she owns no real property, has minimal equity in her vehicle, for which she has allowed her car insurance to lapse, and has outstanding utility company debt. See id. at 4-5. Plaintiff also asserts that she is supporting her son, who is in college. See id. at 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 #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/18/2020. (Scholfield, D.)
March 16, 2020 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 3/16/2020. (Reis, Julia)
March 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/16/2020. (Reis, Julia)
March 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/16/2020. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Reis, Julia)
March 16, 2020 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Dayle Blue. (Reis, Julia)
March 16, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Saul, filed by Dayle Blue. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope)(Reis, Julia)
March 16, 2020 Answer deadline updated for Andrew Saul to 5/15/2020. (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 this case: Blue v. Saul
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dayle Blue
Represented By: Veronica A. Halpine
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: Andrew Saul
Represented By: Nicol Fitzhugh
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?