Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Juan Ortiz |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2021cv00364 |
| March 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| 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 May 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER granting #16 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/14/2021. (Cahill, Leslie)
|
| Filing 16 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until July 16, 2021 file the ECAR by Commissioner of Social Security. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of the Executive Director of Social Security Adminstration's Office of Appellate Operations)(Everhart, Kristin) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, this case has been reassigned to Judge Kari A. Dooley for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 4/29/2021.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 14
REMINDER: STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 4/12/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristin Everhart on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Everhart, Kristin) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a complaint seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. See Doc. #1 . Plaintiff dated the complaint March 16, 2021, see Doc. #1 at 3, and the date stamp applied by the Clerk's Office indicates that it was received by the Court on March 17, 2021. See id. at 1. A plaintiff must file any civil action seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner within 60 days of receiving notice of that decision, unless the time is extended. See 42 U.S.C. 405(g). "[T]he date of receipt of notice" is "presumed to be 5 days after the date of such notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary." 20 C.F.R. 422.210(c). The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on January 4, 2021. See Doc. #11 at 2. Any appeal to this Court was required to be filed within 65 days of that date, that is, on or before March 10, 2021. Plaintiff's complaint was received by the Court on March 17, 2021, one week after that deadline. The Court has served the Complaint on the Commissioner by electronic mail, and set the deadline for the filing of the Administrative Transcript for May 17, 2021. The Commissioner is hereby ordered to file either the Transcript, or, if the Commissioner believes that the Complaint was not timely filed, an appropriate motion to dismiss, by that deadline. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/29/2021.(Weis, Anne)
|
| Filing 11 SUPPLEMENT re #1 Complaint filed by Juan Ortiz. (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 10 Consent to Electronic Notice by Juan Ortiz (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER. The Court has reviewed plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #1 ). The Complaint does not include the date on which the Administrative Law Judge or the Appeals Council issued a decision in his case. See Doc. #1 at 2. Without this information, the Court is unable to determine whether plaintiff's Complaint has been filed within the time limits established by law. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint, or a supplement to the Complaint, stating the date on which the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision in his case. Plaintiff shall also attach a copy of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, and, if he requested review by the Appeals Council, a copy of the Appeals Council's decision. Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint, or supplement to the Complaint, providing this information by no later than April 13, 2021. If plaintiff does not file these materials by the deadline, the Court may dismiss his case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/17/2021.(Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 8
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 Doc. #2 . Plaintiff reports that he receives government cash benefits and "Food Stamp[s,]" and has minimal cash on hand. See id. at 3-4. 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 3/17/2021. (Weis, Anne)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES Signed by Clerk on 03/17/2021.(Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/17/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/17/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/17/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Juan Ortiz. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Juan Ortiz. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Fazekas, J.) |
| Answer deadline updated for Commissioner of Social Security to 5/17/2021. (Fazekas, 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.
