Morris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
| Shawn Anthony Morris |
| Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
| Social Security Administrative Record and US Attorney - Social Security Noticing |
| 6:2023cv00293 |
| January 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Kevin McDonald |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF CASE NUMBER. New case number is 6-23-cv-293-KFM. Please make a note of this for all future filings and Judge's preferences. (kmca) |
Filing 9
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/27/23. (kmca)
|
| Filing 8 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Shawn Anthony Morris.. (Tilley-Beeler, Amanda) |
| Filing 7 TEXT ORDER granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 1/24/23.(arut) |
|
Filing 6
TEXT ORDER. 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. The report is a district-wide review of the court's magistrate judge positions. By local rule, all social security appeals are automatically referred to magistrate judges on a district-wide rotation for reports and recommendations or final disposition by consent of the parties. According to the report, for the period of 2015-2019, social security appeals in this district increased by 37 percent, and felony criminal cases increased by over 16 percent. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, grand jury proceedings were postponed, and criminal jury trials have been continued through September 1, 2020. Most detention facilities have initiated mitigation measures which limit the transportation of inmates and in-person visits, including attorney visits. These events have necessarily resulted in a backlog of criminal cases which will require attention as such restrictions are relaxed. New criminal cases will be generated once Grand Jury proceedings resume. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases due in part due to the Speedy Trial Act. Once restrictive measures are released, the court anticipates a flood of criminal matters that will require disposition, which must be given priority over civil matters, including social security appeals. This is in addition to a recent increase in filings by federal inmates seeking reduction in sentences, compassionate release, and other collateral relief pursuant to the First Step Act of 2019 and recent appellate court opinions. The Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 established the magistrate judge's system as a supplemental judicial resource to assist the district courts and provide better service to litigants. The AOUSC report notes that in 2019, of the 350 social security appeals decided in the District of South Carolina, only 27 (7.7 percent) were disposed of by magistrate judges with the parties consent. According to the 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)." The completion of the AO report is prescient considering recent events which will place additional strains on district court resources. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631, United States Magistrate Judges are appointed by the district court. Such appointments are made after a rigorous application and screening process. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a United States 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. Other jurisdictions have recognized that the impact of COVID-19 will include the backlog of civil cases, and the need to utilize magistrate judges to address this problem. As noted by Mark A. Berman, former chair of the commercial and federal litigation section of the New York State Bar Association, It became clear that civil litigators, who need to move their cases forward, have overlooked that, upon consent, magistrate judges can conduct all proceedings in a civil action. The impact of the pandemic now offers the opportunity to take advantage of the offices of magistrate judges who, upon consent, can decide motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and to hold bench and jury trials. Civil Litigators Have An Option In Federal Courts: Magistrate Judges, https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/06/25/civil-litigators-have-an-option-in-federal-courts-magistrate-judges. It has been the practice of this court to give particular attention to social security appeals given the nature of such actions. However, the impact of increased caseloads, the direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and requirement of docket priority for criminal cases will necessarily affect the court's ability to provide for prompt adjudication of social security cases. While parties have the right to adjudication of such matters by a District Judge and may withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences, based on the foregoing, consideration should be given to the referral of social security appeals to a United States 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 United States 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 a status report. (Status Report due by 2/23/2023.)Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 1/24/23. (arut)
|
| Filing 5 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. Answer due from Commissioner of Social Security Administration on 3/27/2023. (arut, ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Shawn Anthony Morris. Response to Motion due by 2/3/2023. 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 Kevin McDonald.(arut) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security Administration 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., filed by Shawn Anthony Morris. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A- Notice of Appeals Council Action)(arut) |
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.
