Cardona Esquilin v. Kijakazi
| Seire Noemi Cardona Esquilin |
| Kilolo Kijakazi |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2021cv01457 |
| November 1, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| 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 December 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ***Entered in Error*** Filing fee received from Law Offices of Ivan M Katz: $ 402.00, receipt number 783568. (Fanelle, N.) Modified on 12/16/2021 (Fanelle, N.). |
| Filing fee received from Law Offices of Ivan M Katz: $ 402.00, receipt number CTXN00024266. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 13
SCHEDULING ORDER: The Government having filed its administrative record (Doc. No. 10 and Doc. No. 11), the court hereby enters the following Scheduling Order: Plaintiff shall file a motion to reverse and/or remand, supporting memorandum of law, and statement of material facts on or before February 7, 2022. Defendant shall file a motion to affirm or a motion for voluntary remand, supporting memorandum of law, and statement of material facts on or before April 8, 2022. Plaintiff may file a reply brief pursuant to Local Rule 7(d) on or before April 22, 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 which sets forth page limits and form and content requirements for motions, supporting memoranda, and statement of materials facts. (Doc. No. 5) 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. Dispositive Motions due by 2/7/2022 Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/10/21. (Caldero, M.)
|
| Filing fee received from Ivan M. Katz: $ 402.00, receipt number TBD (Pesta, J.) |
|
Filing 12
REMINDER: Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/9/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 11 Social Security Transcripts. (McKimens, Pam) |
| Filing 10 Social Security Transcripts. (McKimens, Pam) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Pam McKimens on behalf of Kilolo Kijakazi (McKimens, Pam) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting 7 Recommended Ruling. Upon review and absent objection, the court affirms, adopts and ratifies 7 Recommended Ruling, denying #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff is put on notice that she must either re-file the motion to proceed in forma pauperis OR pay the full filing fee by December 20, 2021. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of her case. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/29/21. (Caldero, M.)
|
| Dismissal due by 12/20/2021 Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/29/21. (Caldero, M.) |
| Filing 7 RECOMMENDED RULING. The undersigned recommends that the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis #3 be DENIED. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) allows a court to authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of fees only when "the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." To show such inability to pay, a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate absolute destitution, see Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam), but she does have to show that "paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintiff." Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007). A "sufficient" in forma pauperis application is one that demonstrates that the plaintiff "cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life." Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).In determining whether a plaintiff's financial circumstances meet this standard, courts consider not only his or her personal resources, but also family resources as well. See, e.g., Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next friend.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Monti v. McKeon, 600 F. Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984), aff'd, 788 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1985) (table decision). Here, the plaintiff has filed a declaration under penalties of perjury, setting forth her financial circumstances. She states that she is receiving $2,800 per month in government benefits. She also states that her husband earns $26.00/hour as a machine operator - which would work out to $1,040 per week, or $4,506 per month, assuming a 40-hour work week. Their two incomes therefore add up to $7,306 per month, as against $5,905 in declared monthly expenses. The plaintiff also owns a home, and has over $35,000 in equity in it.To be sure, the plaintiff's affidavit lists gross rather than net (post-tax) income. And she states that she only has $250 in cash on hand at the moment. But even allowing for these points, the affidavit fails to demonstrate that paying the fee would interfere with "the necessities of life." See, e.g., Morales v. Rembisz, No. 3:20-cv-192 (JCH), slip op. at 2-3 (D. Conn. Mar. 16, 2020) (recommending denial of IFP motion where plaintiffs' gross family income meaningfully exceeded expenses). Because the plaintiff's financial affidavit does not demonstrate an inability to pay, the undersigned recommends that her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.This is a recommended ruling. Any objections to it must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days - that is, by November 16, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 11/02/2021.(Farrish, Thomas) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/01/2021.(Carr, Dave)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/01/2021.(Carr, Dave)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/01/2021. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order)(Carr, Dave)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Seire Noemi Cardona Esquilin. (Carr, Dave) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan Michael Katz on behalf of Seire Noemi Cardona Esquilin (Carr, Dave) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kilolo Kijakazi, filed by Seire Noemi Cardona Esquilin. (Attachments: #1 civil cover sheet)(Carr, Dave) |
| Answer deadline updated for Kilolo Kijakazi to 12/31/2021. (Carr, Dave) |
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.
