Ruiz v. Saul
| Amarylis Ruiz |
| Andrew M. Saul |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2020cv01348 |
| September 9, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| 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 March 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER granting #16 motion for extension of time. The Defendant shall file the electronic Certified Administrative Record by January 7, 2021. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/06/2020. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
|
Filing 16
MOTION for Extension of Time until January 7, 2021 for Filing the Administrative Transcript by Andrew M. Saul. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Walker, Julia)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, the case is reassigned to Judge Stefan R. Underhill for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 10/14/2020.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER finding as moot 6 Recommended Ruling. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/14/20. (Caldero, M.)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER terminating #2 Plaintiff's First Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and #9 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis as moot, in light of the Court's Order (Doc. #12) granting plaintiff's Third Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/7/2020. (Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which includes an updated sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #11 -1. Plaintiff also asserts that the "the factors described in the original Affidavit filed on September 24, 2020, are still present." See Doc. #11 at 1. The revised affidavit states that plaintiff receives approximately $1,400 per month to house and monitor her elderly mother. See Doc. #11 -1 at 1. Plaintiff originally reported that her husband earned approximately $40,000 per year as a self-employed painter. See Doc. #2 -1 at 2. Plaintiff has since clarified that her husband is no longer able to work due to injuries sustained in a car accident on July 6, 2020. See Doc. #11 -1 at 1. Plaintiff reports that the family's monthly expenses are $3,960. See Doc. #2 -1 at 4-5. Plaintiff owns a car and has $2,000 in the bank. See id. at 4. Plaintiff has $30,000 in debt, but reports that she is "unable to make payments." See id.. 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 #11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/7/2020. (Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 11
Third MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Amarylis Ruiz. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Updated Affidavit)(Yelner, Olia)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER taking under advisement #9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled "Second Motion for Leave to File In-Forma Pauperis." Doc. #9 (sic). The motion presents a brief argument from counsel in support of permitting plaintiff to proceed without payment of fees and costs. This motion, however, contradicts plaintiff's previously filed sworn Affidavit (Doc. #2 -1) in two ways. First, plaintiff's counsel asserts in the motion that plaintiff's husband has not been employed since July 2020, when a car accident "took him out of work." Doc. #9 at 1. Plaintiff's sworn affidavit, signed on September 4, 2020, reports that plaintiff's husband has been "self-employed" as a painter from "2019-present." Doc. #2 -1 at 2. Second, the police report attached to the motion states that on July 6, 2020, the date of the accident, plaintiff's husband was driving a 2012 Dodge "Grand Crew Caravan" owned by the plaintiff and registered in her name. See Doc. #9 -1 at 1-2. Plaintiff's affidavit reports that she owns a Honda Pilot, but makes no mention of another vehicle. See Doc. #2 -1 at 3. Plaintiff's motion contradicts plaintiff's prior sworn statements. Unsworn representations of counsel do not provide a basis for the Court to disregard the prior sworn statements of plaintiff herself. If the information set forth in plaintiff's affidavit (Doc. #2 -1) is incomplete or inaccurate, and plaintiff seeks reconsideration of her motion to proceed in forma pauperis based on revised information, she must submit an amended affidavit, under oath, attesting to her current financial condition. Any such amended affidavit shall be filed on or before October 9, 2020. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/24/2020. (Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 9
Second MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Amarylis Ruiz. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Yelner, Olia)
|
|
Filing 8
REMINDER: Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/16/2020. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE of Appearance by Julia C. Walker on behalf of Andrew M. Saul (Walker, Julia)
|
|
Filing 6
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. See Doc. #2 . Attached to the motion is a sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 -1. "Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution[.]" Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam). However, the Court may properly deny an application where a litigant's "access to [the] court has not been blocked by h[er] financial condition[,]" but rather she is "merely in the position of having to weigh the financial constraints posed" by the filing of the complaint against other concerns. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 385, 388 (N.D.N.Y. 1988) (citation and quotation marks omitted).Plaintiff has not established that she is unable to pay the required fees, or that doing so will force her to "forego[] the necessities of life." Potnick, 701 F.2d at 244. Plaintiff is employed and has an income of $1,538 per month. See Doc. #2 -1 at 2. Her husband's monthly income is approximately $3,333, making their joint monthly income approximately $4,871 total. See id. Plaintiff reports that her family's monthly expenses are $3,960. See id. at 3-4. Significantly, plaintiff also reports that she has $2,000 in her bank account. See id. at 3. While plaintiff asserts that she has about $30,000 in debt, she also reports that she is not making monthly payments on that debt. See id. The filing fee in this case is $400. Plaintiffs household monthly income exceeds her monthly expenses, and she has sufficient cash on hand to pay the fee. The Court does not find that plaintiff has established indigency for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915. See Sardarian v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. 3:19CV00910(CSH), 2019 WL 8331443, at *3 (D. Conn. June 19, 2019) ("Although [plaintiff] has mortgages and loans and may incur further debt..., these current and projected expenses do not render him 'indigent'[.]").Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion or pay the required filing fee on or before September 25, 2020, or this case may be dismissed. This is a recommended ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to a recommended ruling ordinarily must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Accordingly, any objection must be filed on or before September 25, 2020. 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); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995); Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam).It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/11/2020.(Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/9/2020. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/9/2020. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 3
Standing Order on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/9/2020. (Attachments: #1 consent form) (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Judge Stefan R. Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Answer deadline updated for Andrew M. Saul to 11/8/2020. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Amarylis Ruiz. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Yelner, Olia)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Andrew M. Saul filed by Amarylis Ruiz.(Yelner, Olia) Modified on 9/9/2020 to correct filed against parties (Hushin, Z.).
|
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.
