Acevedo v. Saul
| Maria Reyes Acevedo |
| Andrew Saul |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2021cv00663 |
| May 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Robert M Spector |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1383 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 10, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER granting #12 Motion for Extension of Time to September 14, 2021 for the Filing of the Administrative Transcript. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 7/10/2021. (Watson, M.)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Extension of Time until September 14, 2021 for Filing the Administrative Transcript by Andrew Saul. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)Motions referred to Robert M. Spector(Walker, Julia) |
| Filing 11 Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, this case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for all purposes including issuing a Recommended Ruling. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/22/2021.(Anastasio, F.) |
|
Filing 10
REMINDER: STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/2/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia C. Walker on behalf of Andrew Saul (Walker, Julia) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying, without prejudice to re-filing, #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel.The Second Circuit has "held that in determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant a district court judge should first consider whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance, then assess the litigant's competence to proceed pro se, the complexity of the issues, and additionally any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination." Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 107-08 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a court begins the consideration of a motion "for appointment of counsel by asking first whether the claimant has met a threshold showing of some likelihood of merit." Johnston v. Maha, 606 F.3d 39, 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, because the administrative transcript has not yet been filed, and where the #1 Complaint provides little detail, plaintiff has failed to make a threshold showing of likelihood of merit. See id.; see also Maldonado ex rel. Maldonado v. Apfel, 55 F. Supp. 2d 296, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("Without a record, the merits cannot be evaluated. Private counsel cannot be expected to become interested in a case of unknown merit. And under Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986), there is not even a proper basis for the Court to appoint pro bono counsel because a court cannot determine whether the case seems likely to be of substance." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).The Second Circuit has also made clear that before appointment of counsel may be considered, the movant must demonstrate that she is unable to obtain counsel. See Saviano v. Local 32B-32J, 75 F. App'x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she has made any effort to obtain counsel on her own. See Doc. #3 at 4-5.Accordingly, plaintiff's #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff may re-file her motion after defendant has filed the administrative transcript and upon a showing that she is unable to obtain counsel. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 5/17/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 7
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 asserts that she is unable to afford to pay fees and costs, as her monthly government cash benefits just cover her monthly obligations. See generally id. at 3-5. At this stage, such allegations are sufficient to establish that plaintiff is unable to pay the ordinary filing fees required by the Court. See 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 5/17/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/17/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/17/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/17/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Maria Reyes Acevedo. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Maria Reyes Acevedo. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Saul, filed by Maria Reyes Acevedo.(Fazekas, J.) |
| Answer deadline updated for Andrew Saul to 7/16/2021. (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.
