Stankovic v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is granted fo r purposes of this order only and the complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order to pro se plaintiff and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 8/28/2012. (Irizarry, Dora)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
SNEZANA STANKOVIC, pro se,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------- x
DORA L. IRIZARRY, U.S. District Judge:

SUMMARY ORDER
12-cv-04148 (DLI)

Pro se 1 Plaintiff Snezana Stankovic (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review of a
decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff’s
application for Social Security Disability and/or Supplemental Security Income under the Social
Security Act. Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court grants
Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP solely for the purpose of this Summary Order. For the reasons
set forth below, the complaint is dismissed.
Plaintiff claims that since 1997 she has been disabled because of “L5 Degenerative Disk
(Back Injury) and Infectious Disease.”

(See Compl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff seeks review of an

Administrative Law Judge’s denial of her claim on April 14, 2010, and claims that the Appeals
Council denied her request for review on March 27, 2012. (See id. ¶¶ 7-8.) This is the same
claim that Plaintiff previously brought in Stankovic v. Commissioner of Social Security, Docket
No. 12-cv-2242 (E.D.N.Y filed on May 3, 2012), which currently is pending before this court.
1

In reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, the court is mindful that, “a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The court construes pro se pleadings “to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F. 3d
471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted).
1

“As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or dismiss a suit
that is duplicative of another federal court suit.” Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F. 3d 133, 138 (2d
Cir. 2000). The Second Circuit has held that “plaintiffs have no right to maintain two actions on
the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time.” Id. at 139. For
this reason, the complaint in this action is dismissed.
Indeed, in an August 20, 2012 Memorandum and Order (“August 20 Order”), this court,
inter alia, dismissed two actions, Stankovic v. Social Security Field Office Supervisor, Docket
No. 12-cv-3225 (E.D.N.Y. filed on June 25, 2012) and Stankovic v. Social Security Office of
Disability Adjudication, Docket No. 12-cv-3226 (E.D.N.Y. filed on June 25, 2012), arising out
of the denial of Plaintiff’s disability benefits as duplicative and meritless. See Stankovic v.
Smith, 2012 WL 3597760 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2012). Plaintiff is admonished to cease filing new
actions relating to the Commissioner’s decision to deny her benefits.
Moreover, since February 2012, Plaintiff has filed 18 actions in this court, as well as two
additional actions before another judge of this district. In the August 20 Order, this court sua
sponte dismissed fourteen of the actions with prejudice and two without prejudice to file
amended complaints.

The two actions before a different judge in this district were also

dismissed sua sponte as meritless.

See Stankovic v. Frankel, 2012 WL 2700648, at *2-3

(E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2012). Plaintiff is reminded, as the court explained in its August 20 Order,
that, if she continues to file frivolous complaints, the court will bar her from filing future IFP
actions without leave of the court.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken
in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 28, 2012
/s/
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge

3