Mu Bey v. Social Security Administration
| Hannibal Mu Bey |
| Social Security Administration |
| 1:2023cv02721 |
| May 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Franklin U Valderrama |
| Social Security: RSI Tax Suits |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed the Opening Brief and Exhibits filed by Plaintiff #11 #12 . The Court notes that the administrative record has not been filed in this action, and therefore no brief is required from Plaintiff at this time, and this brief is not properly before the Court for its consideration. See R. 8. Defendant is not required to submit any response. The Court reminds the parties that Plaintiff's brief in support of reversing or remanding the decision subject to review is due within 60 days of the filing of the administrative record (no motion required). The Social Security Administration's motion to affirm the decision subject to review and its brief in support are due 45 days after plaintiff's brief is filed. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due 14 days after defendant's brief is filed. No oversized briefs will be allowed without prior court approval obtained at least one week before the due date and upon good cause shown. Additionally, on or before the deadline for the filing of the administrative record, the parties shall file a joint status report in which they indicate (i) whether the parties will agree to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and (ii) whether they will agree to a voluntary remand to the Commissioner. If the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, they shall execute and file with the Court the joint consent form included as part of the Clerk's Notice previously filed in this case. If the parties agree to a voluntary remand to the Commissioner, they must file an agreed motion for remand. Emailed notice (axc), |
| Filing 12 EXHIBITS by Plaintiff Hannibal Mu Bey (rp, ) |
| Filing 11 OPENING BRIEF by Hannibal Mu Bey (rp, ) |
| Filing 10 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Hannibal Mu Bey (rp, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) #4 and grants Plaintiff's motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs and fees associated with filing this action, and thus, the filing fee is waived. Because Plaintiff has been authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), the Court orders the United States Marshal's office to serve Defendant. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #5 and denies the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion indicates that he did not contact any law firms or legal aid organizations seeking representation. Plaintiff must contact at least three law firms or legal aid organizations to demonstrate that he has made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on his own. See Pickett v. Chi. Transit Auth., 930 F.3d 869, 871 (7th Cir. 2019) ("A litigant's good faith but unsuccessful effort to obtain counsel is a necessary condition to the provision of judicial assistance to recruit a lawyer."). After making those attempts, Plaintiff may refile the motion if unsuccessful, and as the case progresses. Any renewed motion for attorney representation must also complete all sections of the motion, and identify Plaintiff's highest level of education. The Court directs Plaintiff's attention to the U.S. District Court Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program, information about which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?/2+UWDbtVzCDq3Lu8BusuQ== or 312-435-5691. Mailed notice. (exr, ) |
| MAILED a copy of minute entry #9 to plaintiff (exr, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's brief in support of reversing or remanding the decision subject to review is due within 60 days of the filing of the administrative record (no motion required). The Social Security Administration's motion to affirm the decision subject to review and its brief in support are due 45 days after plaintiff's brief is filed. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due 14 days after defendant's brief is filed. No oversized briefs will be allowed without prior court approval obtained at least one week before the due date and upon good cause shown. Additionally, on or before the deadline for the filing of the administrative record, the parties shall file a joint status report in which they indicate (i) whether the parties will agree to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and (ii) whether they will agree to a voluntary remand to the Commissioner. If the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, they shall execute and file with the Court the joint consent form included as part of the Clerk's Notice previously filed in this case. If the parties agree to a voluntary remand to the Commissioner, they must file an agreed motion for remand. Emailed notice (axc). |
| MAILED copy of Minute Entry #8 to Plaintiff Hannibal Mu Bey. (axc). |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (rp, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rp, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Hannibal Mu Bey for attorney representation (rp, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Hannibal Mu Bey for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (rp, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Hannibal Mu Bey (rp, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (rp, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Hannibal Mu Bey (rp, ) |
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
| Search for this case: Mu Bey v. Social Security Administration | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Hannibal Mu Bey | |
| 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: Social Security Administration | |
| Represented By: | AUSA - SSA |
| 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.
