Lucas v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
| Loretta Lee Lucas |
| Social Security Administration, Commissioner of |
| Social Security Regional Administrator |
| 6:2019cv01053 |
| March 8, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Eric F Melgren |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Additional Information re 5 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,,,,,, The Court also notes that the Motion to Appoint Counsel represents that Plaintiff lives in government housing and receives food stamps, but that statement is inconsistent with her Affidavit of Financial Status. Mailed to pro se plaintiff with Order at Doc. 5. (cm) |
Filing 5
ORDER denying #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the application is incomplete and therefore denied without prejudice to refiling; specifically, the application indicates that the applicant is currently unemployed, in Section II A, but did not complete Section II B, which inquired about previous employment if the applicant is currently unemployed. Further, the application reported no property owned, no cash on hand, and no money received in the past 12 months from any of the listed sources, including no "gifts or inheritances"; yet the application reports $915 of monthly obligations. Either the applicant has some undisclosed source of income, or is receiving some gifts to pay these expenses. The application cannot be granted until a more complete and accurate affidavit of financial status is filed; denying #4 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration for disability. In connection with that lawsuit, she has asked the Court to appoint counsel. She has filed with the court a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Declaration of Good Faith Efforts to Obtain Counsel. Plaintiff's application recites that she had a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in October of 2018, and her application was denied. Although unclear, it appears that rather than file an appeal of that denial, as she should have, she chose to file an independent lawsuit. There are attorneys who specialize in handling Social Security Appeals. From the attorneys listed in her Motion to Appoint Counsel it does not appear that she has contacted such attorneys. Those attorneys, if successful, may be able to recover their legal fees. She should contact those types of attorneys to seek representation. Her Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 3/8/2019.Mailed to pro se party Loretta Lee Lucas by certified mail ; Certified Tracking Number: 70123050000111900350(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cm)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Loretta Lee Lucas. (jk) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Loretta Lee Lucas (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Financial Status). NOTE - Access to document is restricted pursuant to the courts privacy policy. (jk) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET re #1 Complaint by Plaintiff Loretta Lee Lucas. (jk) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with trial location of Wichita, filed by Loretta Lee Lucas. (jk) |
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 Kansas 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.
