Gervais v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Jerome Gervais |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security - Office of the General Counsel |
| 2:2024cv02201 |
| August 16, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Eric I Long |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 Denial Social Security Benefits |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 10, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by David H Levitt on behalf of Commissioner of Social Security (Levitt, David) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long on 8/19/2024. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis was submitted under penalty of perjury and sufficiently demonstrates that the Plaintiff should be excused from paying the filing fee in this action. (VH)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Jerome Gervais. Responses due by 8/30/2024 (Konoski, Bryan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Jerome Gervais. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Konoski, Bryan) |
| NOTICE of Social Security Complaint filed. Commissioner of Social Security answer due on 10/15/2024. (VH) |
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 Illinois Central 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.
