Avila v. Social Security Administration et al
| Delia M. Avila |
| Nancy Berryhill, Social Security Administration and Andrew Marshall Saul |
| 1:2019cv02866 |
| April 29, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Virginia M Kendall |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 CERTIFIED COPY OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by Defendant Andrew Marshall Saul (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Raedy, Valerie) |
| Filing 11 DESIGNATION of Valerie Rebecca Raedy as U.S. Attorney for Defendant Nancy Berryhill (Raedy, Valerie) |
| Filing 10 COMPLAINT filed by Delia M. Avila. (smm, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Plaintiff Delia Avilas application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. Title 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) permits the Court to authorize Avila to proceed in forma pauperis if she is unable to pay the mandated filing fee. The statute "is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Avila is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis if paying the filing fee would prevent her from purchasing the necessities of life. Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). Avila has been unemployed for nearly three years. (Dkt. 4, at 1). She was last employed between July 2015 and June 2016 when she received a monthly salary of $2,000. (Id.) Avila's spouse receives approximately $15,504 annually in social security benefits along with approximately $174 a month in SNAP benefits. (Id. at 2). Avila and her spouse do not have more than $200 in cash or checking or savings accounts and do not have any other income streams. (Id.) The Court finds Avila has sufficiently demonstrated that she is unable to pay the fee and therefore, grants her application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although "[t]here is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), the Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Beyond the principal consideration of indigency, in making the decision whether to recruit counsel, the Court must engage in a two-step analysis: (1) has the plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on her own behalf or been effectively precluded from doing so; and, if so, (2) given the factual and legal complexity of the case, does this particular plaintiff appear competent to litigate the matter herself. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 65455 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Avila has contacted a single attorney who "want[s] to see info before they can say yes." (Dkt. 5, at 1). Presumably, the "info" the attorney is referring to is the administrative record. This attorney seems willing to represent Avila after he reviews the administrative record. Additionally, Avila is a college graduate and the Court believes that Avila is competent to litigate the matter herself at this time. Therefore, Avilas Motion for Attorney Representation #5 is denied without prejudice. Avila may seek attorney representation again if she is unable to retain an attorney after the administrative record is filed.Mailed notice (lk, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.4, Plaintiff's brief in support of reversing and remanding the decision subject to review is due 60 days after administrative record is filed. The Commissioner's motion to affirm the decision and brief in support thereof are due 45 days after Plaintiff's brief is filed. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due 14 days after the Commissioner's brief is filed. Parties are encouraged to consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge in order receive expeditious ruling on the matter due to the significant caseload of the District Court. Parties are to meet and confer within 14 days of the appeal's filing to discuss whether they jointly consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.Mailed notice (Attachments: #1 Consent to Magistrate Judge) (lk, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Delia M. Avila for attorney representation. (smm, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION and Financial Affidavit by Plaintiff Delia M. Avila for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (smm, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Delia M. Avila. (smm, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (smm, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 3 copies by Delia M. Avila; (Attachments). (smm, ) |
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 Northern 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.
