Zubrowski v. Kijakazi
| Jeffrey Joseph Zubrowski |
| Kilolo Kijakazi |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2021cv01458 |
| 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. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
SCHEDULING ORDER: The Government having filed its administrative record (Doc. No. 10), 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 18, 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 19, 2022. Plaintiff may file a reply brief pursuant to Local Rule 7(d) on or before May 3, 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 2/18/2022 Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/20/21. (Caldero, M.)
|
| Filing fee received from Law Offices of Ivan M Katz o/b/o plaintiff: $ 402.00, receipt number: CTXN00024281 (Pesta, J.) Modified on 12/20/2021 to add receipt number. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 11
REMINDER: Standing Order on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/9/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
| Filing 10 Social Security Transcripts. (Attachments: #1 CAR part 2 of 2)(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 he 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 his 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 be DENIED. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) allows a court to authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of fees when "the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." To show an inability to pay, the 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 he does need to show that "paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship." Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007). Put differently, 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 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 citations omitted); Monti v. McKeon, 600 F. Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984), aff'd, 788 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1985) (table decision). Courts also consider the nature and value of the plaintiff's "unencumbered assets." DaCosta v. Wilmington Tr., N.A. as Tr. to Lenham XS Trust Mortg. Pass-Through Certs., Series 2006-5, No. 3:19-cv-0913 (TJM/ML), 2019 WL 4071785, at *3 n.3 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2019) (citing In re Koren, 176 B.R. 740, 744 (E.D. Pa. 1995)).In this case, the plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion is accompanied by a declaration stating that he is unemployed and has no income other than food stamps. His declaration also says, however, that he owns a boat, two jet skis, and a $25,000 pickup truck - all free and clear. The undersigned is unable to conclude that this is a case in which the plaintiff is being "made to choose between abandoning a potential meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life." Potnick, 701 F.2d at 244 (citing Atkins, 335 U.S. at 339). At most, it seems to be a case in which the plaintiff may face a choice between paying the fee and continuing to own luxury items like jet skis and a water skiing boat.The plaintiff's declaration also says that his mother pays almost all of his monthly obligations. He claims expenses of $907 per month (the $732 entry in the "total" space is a math error) as against $125 in monthly food stamp income, meaning that his mother must contribute $782 per month - or nearly $10,000 per year - to his upkeep. As noted above, in assessing in forma pauperis applications, courts consider not only the plaintiff's resources but also "resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide [him] with the necessities of life." Fridman, 195 F. Supp. 2d at 537. In his declaration, the plaintiff provided no information about his mother's resources and their availability to pay the filing fee. For all of these reasons, I recommend that his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the current record.This is a recommended ruling. Any objections must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days - that is, by November 22, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 11/08/2021.(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 APPEALS 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 Jeffrey Joseph Zubrowski. (Carr, Dave) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan Michael Katz on behalf of Jeffrey Joseph Zubrowski (Carr, Dave) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kilolo Kijakazi, filed by Jeffrey Joseph Zubrowski. (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.
