Piccerillo v. Saul
| Lisa Piccerillo |
| Andrew M. Saul |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2020cv01878 |
| December 16, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #10 Motion for Extension of Time. Any motions for additional extensions must (a) comply with Local Rule 7 in all respects and (b) be accompanied by a statement of the status of the administrative record in this case, as opposed to the Commissioner's efforts to produce administrative records generally. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 02/09/2021. (Farrish, Thomas)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time until April 16, 2021 for Filing the Administrative Transcript by Andrew M. Saul. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)Motions referred to Thomas O. Farrish(Walker, Julia) |
| Filing 9 Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, this case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish for all purposes including issuing a recommended ruling. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/25/2021.(Anastasio, F.) |
|
Filing 8
REMINDER: Standing Order on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/5/2021. (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
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 includes a sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Docs. #2 , #2 -1. Plaintiff has not been employed since 2016. See Doc. #2 -1 at 2. Plaintiff reports that she receives a "HUD subsidy" and has $250.00 in cash on hand. Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that she has been "living off of her savings[,]" id. at 4, and that her monthly obligations total $668. See id. at 3. Plaintiff reports that she is unable to make payments on her outstanding debt, see id., and that she recently "stopped making her car payments[.]" Id. at 4. 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 12/17/2020. (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 12/16/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/16/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/16/2020. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Andrew M. Saul to 2/15/2021. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Judge Stefan R. Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Lisa Piccerillo. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Yelner, Olia) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew M. Saul filed by Lisa Piccerillo.(Yelner, Olia) Modified on 12/17/2020 to correct filed against parties (Walker, J.). |
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.
