Kilvington v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Katherine S. Kilvington |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2021cv01139 |
| August 25, 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 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 24, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER: The Government having filed the administrative record, the court hereby enters the following Scheduling Order: Plaintiff shall file a motion to reverse and/or remand and a supporting memorandum of law on or before NOVEMBER 23, 2021. On or before NOVEMBER 23, 2021, plaintiff shall file, as a separate document, a statement of material facts consisting of numbered paragraphs and supported by specific page citations to the Certified Administrative Record, as shall comply with the Standing Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 4) in this case. Defendant shall file a motion to affirm or a motion for voluntary remand on or before JANUARY 22, 2022 . On or before JANUARY 22, 2022, defendant shall file a responsive statement of facts as set forth in the Standing Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 4) entered in this case. Plaintiff may file a reply brief pursuant to Local Rule 7(d) and may file a response to defendants statement of facts on or before FEBRUARY 5, 2022. Prior to the filing of any dispositive motions, counsel are encouraged to confer regarding the merits of the case in an effort to determine whether a reversal and voluntary remand are appropriate. The court reminds the parties of the previously filed Standing Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 4) which sets forth page limits and form and content requirements for motions and supporting memoranda. The parties should avoid boilerplate discussions of the governing legal standards as the court is familiar with the standard of review and the sequential evaluation process employed in the analysis of Social Security disability applications. The parties should focus on informing the court of relevant and controlling legal authority and applying it to the facts of this case. Motions filed by the parties must comply with the requirements set forth above and in the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to comply may result in denial of the motion.Requests for extensions of these deadlines are discouraged and, unless unusual circumstances dictate otherwise, counsel should not seek an extension of greater than 30 days. Any motion for extension of a deadline must include a showing of good cause as required by Local Rule 7(b)(2) and must be filed at least three days before the existing deadline. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 9/24/2021.(Watson, M.)
|
| Filing 10 Social Security Transcripts. (Attachments: #1 CAR part 2 of 5, #2 CAR part 3 of 5, #3 CAR part 4 of 5, #4 CAR part 5 of 5)(Fitzhugh, Nicol) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicol Fitzhugh on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Fitzhugh, Nicol) |
| Filing 8 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Commissioner of Social Security, Katherine S. Kilvington. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector. 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 9/1/2021.(Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE by Katherine S. Kilvington Magistrate Consent (Merritt, Hannalore) |
|
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. Plaintiff asserts that she is unable to afford to pay fees and costs, as her monthly expenses exceed her monthly benefits. See generally id. at 3-5. Plaintiff also states that she has outstanding debt and minimal assets. 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. 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 8/25/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/25/2021. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/25/2021. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 3
Standing Order on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/25/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent form) (Oliver, T.)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Katherine S. Kilvington. (Merritt, Hannalore) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Katherine S. Kilvington. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Merritt, Hannalore) |
| Answer deadline updated for Commissioner of Social Security to 10/24/2021. (Oliver, T.) |
| Judge Stefan R. Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam(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.
