Hudson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
| Pamala F. Hudson |
| Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
| Social Security Administrative Record and US Attorney - Social Security Noticing |
| 2:2024cv04536 |
| August 20, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Mary Gordon Baker |
| Sherri A Lydon |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 TEXT ORDER granting #10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice re David B. Goetz for Pamala F. Hudson. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker on 10/11/2024. (tsim, ) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David B. Goetz ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-11995940) by Pamala F. Hudson. Response to Motion due by 10/1/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Application for Pro Hac Vice admission) No proposed order. Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker.(McChesney, Paul) (Attachment 1 replaced on 10/10/2024) (tsim, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/10/2024: #2 Certificate of Good Standing) (tsim, ). Modified on 10/10/2024 to replace incorrect document with correct document as provided by filing user and to add to main document an attachment that was filed separately. (tsim, ). |
| Filing 9 TEXT ORDER. On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff, by way of counsel, submitted a #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff did not, however, enclose an accompanying application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs. The undersigned therefore directed Plaintiff to file the outstanding application within twenty-one days so that the Court could determine whether she had sufficient funds to prepay the filing fee. In compliance with the undersigneds instructions, Plaintiff then filed an #8 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis with a properly completed application, which verifies that she does not have the funds to prepay the filing fee at this time. However, in filing this amended motion on the Courts Electronic Filing system, it appears counsel labeled the motion as one seeking in forma pauperis status on appeal. The undersigned assumes this was done in error; however, to be clear, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs #3 #8 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for the instant case only. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker on 8/30/2024.(tsim, ) |
| Filing 8 Amended MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal (Restricted Access) by Pamala F. Hudson. Response to Motion due by 9/13/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(McChesney, Paul) |
| Filing 7 TEXT ORDER. On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff, by way of counsel, submitted a #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Contrary to the motion, however, Plaintiff did not enclose an accompanying Application to Proceed in the District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ("Long Form"). Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff has sufficient funds to prepay the filing fee at this time. The undersigned therefore directs Plaintiff to file the outstanding fee waiver application within twenty-one days from the date this Order is entered so that the Court may rule on her #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis in a timely manner. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker on 08/22/2024. (mdoe, ) |
Filing 6
TEXT ORDER: By local rule in this District, all social security appeals are automatically referred to United States Magistrate Judges on a district-wide rotation for reports and recommendations or, by consent of the parties, final disposition. In accordance with the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) recently completed a Survey of Magistrate Judge Positions in the District of South Carolina and issued a report reviewing the Courts Magistrate Judge positions (the AOUSC Report). According to the AOUSC Report, for the period of 2015-2019, social security appeals in this District increased by 37%, and felony criminal cases increased by over 16%. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases due, in part, to the Speedy Trial Act. As a result, consideration of social security appeals is sometimes delayed. Further, the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 established the magistrate judge's system as a supplemental judicial resource to assist the district courts and to provide better service to litigants. The AOUSC Report notes that in 2019, of the 350 social security appeals decided in this District, only 27 (7.7%) were disposed of by Magistrate Judges with the parties' consent. According to the AOUSC Report: "Many districts around the country have had great success in encouraging consent to magistrate judges in social security appeal cases. Maximizing dispositions on consent rather than through reports and recommendations could be part of the court's strategy, to the extent it is feasible, for maintaining the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of these cases, as well as realizing the benefits of consent outlined below. Consent to disposition by the magistrate judge can bring about a quicker resolution of the appeal than the report and recommendation process." "Therefore, the court may wish to remind the government and members of the social security bar of the consent option, and its time savings for litigants, by appropriate means (e.g., form letters to parties, status conferences, speaking engagements before the bar)." Given recent events with the COVID-19 pandemic, which have placed additional strains on the Districts resources, the findings and suggestions of the AOUSC Report are of even greater significance. As a result of both the AOUSC Report and the recent events, this Court finds it imperative to remind the parties of the opportunity to consent to final disposition of social security appeal cases by a Magistrate Judge. Again, it has been the practice of this Court to give particular attention to social security appeals given the nature of such actions. The impact of increased caseloads, the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the requirement of docket priority for criminal cases, however, will necessarily affect this Court's ability to provide for prompt adjudication of social security cases. The Magistrate Judges, however, are well equipped to handle final disposition of these cases in a timely manner. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631, Magistrate Judges are appointed by the District Court. Such appointments are made after a rigorous application and screening process. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a Magistrate Judge may, upon consent of the parties, conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and enter a final order in the case. While parties have the right to adjudication of such matters by a District Judge and may absolutely withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences, based on the foregoing, consideration should be given to the referral of social security appeals to a Magistrate Judge for final disposition. The U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina has entered a Standing Consent Agreement for such referrals. See 3:04-mc-5005. Accordingly, counsel for the Plaintiff is directed to consult with the Plaintiff concerning the foregoing and to file a status report within 30 days informing the court as to whether Plaintiff consents to disposition by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. If Plaintiff consents, AO Form 85, found at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil-action-magistrate-judge may be filed in lieu of the status report. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 8/21/2024. (tsim, )
|
| Filing 4 Notice: Social Security Case Service. Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security, the Clerk has issued a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system notifying the appropriate Regional Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel and the United States Attorney's Office of the case. No summonses shall issue. Set Answer Deadline - Social Security Complaint: Answer due from Commissioner of Social Security Administration on 10/21/2024. (tsim, ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Pamala F. Hudson. Response to Motion due by 9/3/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order. Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker. (tsim, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security Administration filed byPamala F. Hudson. Clerk's Note: See 28:636(b)(1)(C)(4)(c)(1) and Local Rule 83.VII.03 regarding Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge in Social Security cases. Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge forms are available on the Court's website. (tsim, ) |
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 South Carolina 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.
