Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security
WARNING TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF: plaintiff's Motion to Reverse or Remand Decision of Commissioner is due November 18, 2011. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 10/26/2011. (Rodko, B.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HEATHER L. DAVIS
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY :
3:11 CV 875(CSH)
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2011
WARNING TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF
On May 27, 2011, plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint, regarding defendant’s denial
of plaintiff’s application for Social Security Benefits. (Dkt. #1).1 Senior U.S. District Judge
Charles S. Haight, Jr. referred this file to this Magistrate Judge six days later, on June 2,
2011. (Dkt. #4). Defendant filed his Answer and Certified Transcript on August 17, 2011.
(Dkt. #12). The next day, this Magistrate Judge filed a Scheduling Order (Dkt. #13), which
ordered plaintiff to file her Motion to Reverse or Remand Decision of the Commissioner, with
brief in support, on or before October 17, 2011, and defendant to file his Motion to Affirm
Decision of the Commissioner, with brief in support, on or before December 19, 2011. (See
also Dkt. #6).
The pro se plaintiff has failed to file her motion and brief. Under well established case
law in the Second Circuit, a lawsuit filed by a pro se plaintiff cannot be dismissed unless the
plaintiff receives specific notice that further delay, not merely delay in general, could result
in dismissal of his or her lawsuit, and “with respect to pro se litigants, the severe sanction of
dismissal with prejudice may be generally imposed only if the litigant receives warning that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, also filed on May 27, 2011 (Dkt.
#2), was granted six days later, on June 2, 2011. (Dkt. #5; see also Dkt. #4). In her Complaint,
plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to receive disability benefits for a disability commencing on
March 3, 2009, for panic attacks, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, asthma
noncompliance could result in dismissal.” Harvey v. Bennett, No. 98-CV-7814 (CPS), 2009
WL 2568551,at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2009)(citations omitted); see also Burke v. Miron, No.
3:07 CV 1181 (RNC), 2009 WL 952097, at *1-2 (D. Conn. Feb. 20, 2009)(with respect to
non-compliance with discovery orders, “the sanction of dismissal with prejudice may be
imposed against a pro se party only if the court warned the pro se party that noncompliance
with court orders could result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.”)(citations omitted).
THEREFORE, THE PRO SE PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY WARNED THAT IF SHE
FAILS TO FILE HER MOTION TO REVERSE OR REMAND DECISION OF THE
COMMISSIONER, WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT, ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 18, 2011, IN
VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER AND THE PREVIOUS SCHEDULING ORDER, THIS
FAILURE WILL LEAD TO THE ENTRY OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OF THIS
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 26th day of October, 2011.
_/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge
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?