Jack v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER re 2 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency filed by Todd M. Jack. Petitioner Todd M. Jack's Petition for the Continuance of the Complaint to Implement USA Federal Court Rule 62 is DISMISSED. Jack 9;s Affidavit of Indigency 2 , which the Court construes as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Jack's Petition for the Continuance of the Complaint to Implement USA Federal Court Rule 62 as a pending motion in Jack v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:14-cv-723-FtM-38MRM. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/11/2018. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
TODD M. JACK,
Case No: 2:18-cv-232-FtM-38MRM
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review Petitioner Todd M.
Jack’s Petition for the Continuance of the Complaint to Implement USA Federal Court
Rule 62 filed on April 9, 2018. (Doc. 1). Jack, appearing pro se, also moves to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2).
Over three years ago, Jack sought judicial review of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for disability and disability
insurance benefits. See Jack v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:14-cv-723-FtM-38MRM
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2014). Jack won the case because this Court reversed and remanded
the Commissioner’s decision for reconsideration of his impairments.2
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
The Court remanded for the Commissioner to decide if Jack had a medically determinable impairment
that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe, and to continue in the sequential evaluation.
It did not, however, order the Commissioner to award Jack disability and/or disability insurance benefits.
reason, Jack appealed the Court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and issued a
Mandate about one year ago.
As the best the Court can tell, Jack brings this new suit to enforce the Eleventh
Circuit’s decision. He twice tried seeking relief before the Eleventh Circuit. But the
appellate court returned his filings because it closed his appeal. Being unsuccessful
there, Jack has turned to this Court for the same relief. He did so by filing a new case. A
new case, however, is unnecessary when he is seeking relief on judgments entered in
the underlying suit. In other words, the relief he seeks belongs in the originally filed case
and does not stand as an independent action. The Court thus dismisses the Petition
(Doc. 1) and denies as moot the motion for in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1) Petitioner Todd M. Jack’s Petition for the Continuance of the Complaint to
Implement USA Federal Court Rule 62 is DISMISSED.
(2) Jack’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 2), which the Court construes as a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED as moot.
(3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Jack’s Petition for the Continuance of the
Complaint to Implement USA Federal Court Rule 62 as a pending motion in
Jack v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:14-cv-723-FtM-38MRM.
(4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 11th day of April 2018.
Copies: All Parties of Record
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?