Bassick v. O'Malley

Plaintiff: Rachel Bassick
Defendant: Martin O'Malley
Interested Party: Social Security Administration
Case Number: 3:2024cv00322
Filed: March 8, 2024
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Jeffrey A Meyer
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 22, 2024 Filing 15 ORDER RETAINING JURISDICTION OF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE. Plaintiff has filed a motion to consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. #14 ). Unfortunately, however, the notice has been filed well after the deadline set by the Standing Order for the plaintiff to have done so and after the cases' assignment to Judge Meyer. (Doc. #3 ). If the Court were to honor a consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge that is late-filed after the transfer of the case to a particular District Judge, it raises an appearance that a plaintiff is engaged in judge-shopping that does not reflect well on the integrity of judicial proceedings and the goals of judicial assignments by means of random selection. To be clear, the Court does not find that this is the reason that plaintiff has filed a late consent. Its concern goes only to the appearance that a late-filed consent creates. Accordingly, Judge Meyer will retain jurisdiction over this action and declines to transfer the action to a Magistrate Judge. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/22/2024.(Lewis, D)
April 11, 2024 Filing 14 NOTICE by Rachel Bassick Consent to USMJ (Yelner, Olia)
April 3, 2024 Filing 13 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. The Commissioner shall file its answer and the administrative record on or before June 3, 2024. The Court further orders the Commissioner to produce a text-searchable version of the record on the same date as the certified record. This "searchable record" should contain identical images to the certified record as well as the certified record's table of contents and electronic tabs but need not be certified or comply with the PDF/A standard. This "searchable record" shall be understood as a supplemental submission to aid the Court and parties' review of the record, rather than a substitute for the certified record required by 42 U.S.C. 405(g); if there are conflicts, the certified record shall govern. Plaintiff shall file a Motion to Reverse and/or Remand and supporting memorandum of law on or before August 1, 2024. The memorandum of law must explain the reasons why plaintiff believes the decision should be reversed or remanded for reconsideration, specifically addressing whether there was an error of law or a lack of substantial evidence to support the decision below. See, e.g., Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 374-75 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam). The Commissioner shall file its response or its Motion to Affirm the decision of the Commissioner on or before September 30, 2024. Plaintiff may file a reply brief within 14 days of the Commissioner's response. The parties should file briefing with appropriate citations to the record but are excused from any requirement to file a separate material statement of facts. Counsel should confer at the earliest practicable time if there will be an agreement to a voluntary remand and to filing of a joint motion for voluntary remand in lieu of full rounds of briefing. The Court will contact the parties shortly after filing of the Commissioner's response regarding a date for scheduling of oral argument. The parties are advised that the Court is unlikely to grant an extension of time of the dates as set forth in this scheduling order, and that failure to comply with the Court's scheduling order may result in a summary grant of relief for the opposing party. Any motion for extension of time must be filed at least 5 days in advance of the deadline that is due and must establish "good cause" with a particularized showing why the existing deadline could not be reasonably met despite the diligence of the party seeking an extension of time in accordance with the requirements of D. Conn. Local Civ. R. 7(b). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/3/2024. (Pincus, K)
April 2, 2024 Filing 12 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, this case is reassigned to Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 4/2/2024.(Maturo, F.)
March 28, 2024 Filing fee received from Rachel Bassick: $ 405.00, receipt number BPT-14226. (Fanelle, N.)
March 27, 2024 Filing 11 RESPONSE by Rachel Bassick. (Yelner, Olia)
March 14, 2024 Filing 10 ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 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. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007). Put differently, a "sufficient" in forma pauperis application is one that demonstrates that the plaintiff "cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for the costs [of litigation] and still be able to provide [herself] and dependents with the necessities of life, such as food, clothing and shelter." Sardarian v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. 19-CV-910 (CSH), 2019 WL 8331443, at *2 (D. Conn. June 19, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). Federal courts often look to federal poverty guidelines to determine whether a plaintiff would be subject to serious hardship if compelled to pay a filing fee. See, e.g., Fuentes v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 85, 92 (2011) (looking to federal poverty guidelines to determine IFP status); Waltner v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 139, 143 (2010) (same). Here, the income of Plaintiff places her well above the federal poverty guidelines for a household of one. The Annual Update of the Poverty Guidelines promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services most recently set the poverty guidelines for a one-person household in the 48 contiguous States at $15,060. See https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines. Plaintiff's affidavit states that she is currently employed part-time and makes $1,500 monthly, receives $2,200 per month in social security retirement benefits, $400 monthly in partial unemployment benefits and alimony of $1,000 per month approximating a yearly income of $61,200, or over 400% of the poverty threshold for her household. However, since a plaintiff's position relative to the poverty guidelines may not tell the entire story, the Court looks at the expenses and other assets as part of its inquiry. Plaintiff's affidavit states that her household gross monthly income is $5,100 as against $4,118 in monthly expenses. Plaintiff's stated monthly income therefore exceeds the monthly expenses by $982. Plaintiff supports no dependents. Her affidavit also states that she has a balance of $1,200 in her checking/savings account, which is nearly three times the filing fee of $402. See Tangry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-06248 (EAW), 2018 WL 11452136, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2018) (denying IFP status where only source of income was workers compensation which exceeded poverty guidelines for household of one and had cash on hand). On the record before the Court, the undersigned is unable to conclude that this is a case in which Plaintiff is being "made to choose between abandoning a potential meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life." Potnick, 701 F.2d at 244. This is a recommended ruling by a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.1(C). If Plaintiff wishes to object to my recommendation, she must file that objection with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (objections to magistrate judge recommendations to be filed within fourteen days); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a) (allowing five additional days, as computed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, for persons who receive the recommendation from the Clerk of the Court via mail). If she does not do so, she may not thereafter assign as error any claimed defect in this recommended ruling. Id. Failure to file a timely objection will also preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) ([F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.); accord Impala v. United States Dep't of Just., 670 F. App'x 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order). Signed by Judge Maria E. Garcia on 3/14/24. (Esposito, A.) Modified text on 3/15/2024 (Santos, S).
March 14, 2024 Filing 9 REMINDER: Standing ORDER on Social Security Appeals Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 3/14/2024. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Maturo, F.)
March 13, 2024 Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by John Molinaro on behalf of Martin O'Malley (Molinaro, John)
March 11, 2024 Filing 7 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, A.)
March 8, 2024 Filing 6 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 Clerk on 3/8/2024.(Chartier, A.)
March 8, 2024 Filing 5 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 3/8/2024.(Chartier, A.)
March 8, 2024 Filing 4 Standing ORDER Re: Social Security Cases. Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 3/8/2024.(Chartier, A.)
March 8, 2024 Filing 3 Standing ORDER on Social Security Appeals. Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 3/8/2024. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Chartier, A.)
March 8, 2024 Judge Michael P Shea and Judge Maria E. Garcia added. (Freberg, B)
March 8, 2024 Answer deadline updated for Martin O'Malley to 5/8/2024. (Chartier, A.)
March 8, 2024 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Rachel Bassick. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Yelner, Olia)
March 8, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Martin O'Malley, filed by Rachel Bassick.(Yelner, Olia) Modified on 3/11/2024 to correct parties filed against(Hushin, Z.).

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 this case: Bassick v. O'Malley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rachel Bassick
Represented By: Olia Yelner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Martin O'Malley
Represented By: John Molinaro.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Interested party: Social Security Administration
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?