Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security
| 1:2020cv05151 |
| July 13, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Rev. of Final Dec. of Sec. of HEW re: S.S. Benefits |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
8
ORDER: Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Pl aintiff by first class and certified mail. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/5/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER: On July 11, 2020, the Court entered an order that identified certain deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint and request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 5. The Court directed Plaintiff to remedy these deficiencies b y August 13, 2020. Id. As of August 25, 2020, the Court had not received Plaintiff's submissions. Accordingly, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to comply with the July 11, 2020 order by no later than September 14, 2020. Dkt . No. 6. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff still has not complied with the Court's previous orders and has not remedied the deficiencies identified by the Court in the July 11, 2020 order. Plaintiff has not filed anything in this action since filing the Complaint on July 6, 2020. Plaintiff is directed to comply with Court's July 11, 2020 order by November 11, 2020. Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders. Failure to comply with this order may res ult in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied fo r the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the Court's July 11, 2020 and August 25, 2020 orders, Dkt. Nos. 5 and 6, by first class and certified mail. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/21/2020) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER: On July 11, 2020, the Court entered an order that identified deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint and request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 5. The Court directed Plaintiff to remedy these deficiencies by August 13, 2020. Id. A s of the date of this order, the Court has not received Plaintiff's submissions. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the July 11, 2020 order forthwith, and in no event later than September 7, 2020. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not b e taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstr ates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the Court's July 11, 2020 order, Dkt. No. 5, by first class and certified mail. (Motions due by 9/7/2020.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/25/2020) (nb) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER: On July 6, 2020 Plaintiff applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff failed to complete all of question 2 of the IFP application. As a result, the Court ca nnot grant this request, and Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is directed to resubmit the IFP application by August 13, 2020. Finally, Plaintiff brings this action pro se on behalf o f Christopher Sanchez. In general, a plaintiff cannot bring suit on behalf of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. A litigant proceeding pro se "must be litigating an interest personal to him." Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Ci r. 1998) ("[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause."). However, "[w]here a district court, after appropriate inquiry into the particul ar circumstances of the matter at hand, determines that a non-attorney parent who brings an SSI appeal on behalf his or her children has a sufficient interest in the case and meets basic standards of competence, we hold that in such cases a non-a ttorney parent may bring an action on behalf of his or her child without representation by an attorney." Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to submit a letter to the Court by August 13, 2020 explaining why Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of Mr. Sanchez and Plaintiff's interest in this case, including whether Plaintiff is Mr. Sanchez's parent and whether Mr. Sanchez is a minor. The Court certifies under 28 U.S .C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/11/2020) (mro)
|
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 New York Southern 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: Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
