Rimel v. Saul
Plaintiff: James Clayton Rimel
Defendant: Andrew M. Saul
Case Number: 4:2021cv00011
Filed: January 7, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: Willie J Epps
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:205
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 5, 2021 Filing 7 RETURN OF SERVICE of Social Security complaint. United States Attorney General served on 1/19/2021. (Driskill, Roger)
March 5, 2021 Filing 6 RETURN OF SERVICE of Social Security complaint on United States Attorney. Summons served on 1/11/2021 Social security answer due by 3/12/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. Record of Submission due by 4/12/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Driskill, Roger)
March 5, 2021 Filing 5 RETURN OF SERVICE of Social Security complaint. Commissioner of Social Security, Office of the Regional Counsel served on 1/11/2021. (Driskill, Roger)
January 13, 2021 Filing 4 NOTICE of Magistrate Assignment Returned by Plaintiff, James Clayton Rimel and Defendant, Andrew M. Saul. Jurisdiction by magistrate accepted. ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent)(Berner, Crystal)
January 8, 2021 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Andrew M. Saul, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Woods, Gloria)
January 8, 2021 Filing 3 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT filed by Roger M. Driskill on behalf of James Clayton Rimel Service due by 4/8/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-Harlan, #2 Exhibit B-Geenens, #3 Exhibit C-WestEffland, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Driskill, Roger)
January 7, 2021 NOTICE OF MAGISTRATE ASSIGNMENT as to Plaintiff: Plaintiff must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge assignment. Click # here for instructions. Form due by 1/28/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Woods, Gloria)
January 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER granting #1 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed on 01/07/2021 by Magistrate Judge Willie J. Epps, Jr. (Geiser, Angel)
January 7, 2021 Filing 1 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Roger M. Driskill on behalf of James Clayton Rimel. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/21/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Affidavit of IFP status, #2 Appendix Complaint proposed to be filed, #3 Exhibit A-Harlan, #4 Exhibit B-Geenens, #5 Exhibit C-West Effland, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Attorney Roger M. Driskill added to party James Clayton Rimel (pty:pla))(Driskill, Roger)

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 Missouri Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rimel v. Saul
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Clayton Rimel
Represented By: Roger M. Driskill
Represented By: Kyle Henry Sciolaro
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: Andrew M. Saul
Represented By: OGCSSAR7
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?