Nichols v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Katia Nichols |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2023cv00976 |
| July 24, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Maria E Garcia |
| Michael P Shea |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. § 0405 dc Review of SSA Decision SSDC - Concurrent Title II and Title XVI Claims |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 JUDGMENT filed and entered and remanded for additional administrative proceedings.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Clerk on 9/19/23.(Johnson, D.) |
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Johnson, D.) |
Filing 15
ORDER: The Commissioner's #14 consent Motion to Remand the case is hereby GRANTED. Under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's decision and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings.Signed by Michael P. Shea, Chief Judge, on September 18, 2023. (Housman, L)
|
| Filing 14 MOTION to Remand to Agency by Commissioner of Social Security. Motions referred to Maria E. Garcia(Carter, Molly) |
| Filing 13 Social Security Transcripts. (Attachments: #1 Part Two, #2 Part Three, #3 Part Four)(Carter, Molly) |
| Filing fee received from Green and Greenberg: $ 402.00, receipt number 27489 (Chartier, A) Modified on 9/19/2023 to add receipt number (Freberg, B). |
|
Filing 12
ORDER Denying #10 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma PauperisPlaintiff moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in other words, she has asked the Court for permission to start a civil case without paying the customary filing fee. A federal law permits her to do so if, among other things, she submits an affidavit listing her assets and showing that she is unable to pay the fee. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). To qualify as unable 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 she does need to show that paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship. Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007). The United States Supreme Court has said that a plaintiff makes a sufficient showing of inability to pay when her application demonstrates that she cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide [her]self and [her] dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In this case, the plaintiffs amended in forma pauperis affidavit states that she has $14,327.74 in savings and $231.63 in a checking account. (ECF No. 10-1, at 3-4.) Her cash on hand therefore exceeds her stated monthly expenses of $618.42 (id.), which is more than thirty-six times the $402.00 filing fee. She shows that she pays no rent or mortgage and has no car payment. (Id.) On the record before the Court, the undersigned is unable to conclude that this is a case in which paying the fee would present the plaintiff with a choice between abandoning a potential meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life. Potnick, 701 F.2d at 244. I therefore recommend that the Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied. ECF No. 10. This is a recommended ruling by a magistrate judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of being served with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within fourteen days will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a); Impala v. United States Dept of Justice, 670 F. App'x 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (failure to file timely objection to magistrate judge's recommended ruling precluded further appeal to Second Circuit); Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Signed by Judge Maria E. Garcia on 8/28/23. (Esposito, A.)
|
| Filing 11 Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Maria E. Garcia for all purposes including issuing a Recommended Ruling. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/14/2023.(Anastasio, F.) |
| Filing 10 Amended MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Katia Nichols. (Spunzo, David) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER denying #2 without prejudice #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a court form that is not used in this district. Plaintiff is directed to file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915-Social Security Disability Appeals within fourteen days or pay the $402 filing fee. The form is available on the courts website at: https://ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/IFP-for-Soc-Sec-Appeal-rev-9-21-21-2_0.pdf. Failure to file an affidavit on the correct form or to pay the filing fee within fourteen (14) days of this Order may result in dismissal of the case.. Signed by Judge Maria E. Garcia on 7/31/23. (Esposito, A.)
|
| Filing 8 Notice of New SSA Action: Electronic service of the complaint was made by the Clerk's Office upon the Social Security Office of General Counsel and the US Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut. (Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE to Counsel: Due to privacy restrictions on social security cases, absent both a consent to electronic notice and an approved motion for efiling privileges, counsel must mail paper copies to self-represented litigants. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/24/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/24/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
|
Filing 5
Standing ORDER Re: Social Security Cases. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/24/2023.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
|
Filing 4
Standing ORDER on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/24/2023. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Commissioner of Social Security to 9/24/2023. (Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Molly E Carter on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Carter, Molly) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Katia Nichols. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Spunzo, David) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Katia Nichols. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Spunzo, David) Modified on 7/24/2023 to correct party(Hushin, Z.). |
| Judge Michael P. Shea and Judge Maria E. Garcia added. Motions referred to Maria E. Garcia (Oliver, T.) |
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.
