Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 5

ORDER: On July 6, 2020 Plaintiff applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff failed to complete all of question 2 of the IFP application. As a result, the Court ca nnot grant this request, and Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is directed to resubmit the IFP application by August 13, 2020. Finally, Plaintiff brings this action pro se on behalf o f Christopher Sanchez. In general, a plaintiff cannot bring suit on behalf of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. A litigant proceeding pro se "must be litigating an interest personal to him." Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Ci r. 1998) ("[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause."). However, "[w]here a district court, after appropriate inquiry into the particul ar circumstances of the matter at hand, determines that a non-attorney parent who brings an SSI appeal on behalf his or her children has a sufficient interest in the case and meets basic standards of competence, we hold that in such cases a non-a ttorney parent may bring an action on behalf of his or her child without representation by an attorney." Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to submit a letter to the Court by August 13, 2020 explaining why Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of Mr. Sanchez and Plaintiff's interest in this case, including whether Plaintiff is Mr. Sanchez's parent and whether Mr. Sanchez is a minor. The Court certifies under 28 U.S .C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/11/2020) (mro)

Case 1:20-cv-05151-GHW Document 5 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
JENNIFER SUAREZ on behalf of Christopher Sanchez, :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v :
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED 7/13/2020

1:20-cv-5151-GHW
ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. Plaintiff submitted the complaint without a signature.
Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion,
and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a
party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court
has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require “as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark
handplaced).” Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001). Plaintiff is directed to resubmit the
signature page of the complaint with an original signature to the Court by August 13, 2020.
On July 6, 2020 Plaintiff applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), without
prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff failed to complete all of question 2 of the IFP
application. As a result, the Court cannot grant this request, and Plaintiff ’s application for in forma
pauperis status is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is directed to resubmit the IFP application
by August 13, 2020.
Finally, Plaintiff brings this action pro se on behalf of Christopher Sanchez. In general, a
plaintiff cannot bring suit on behalf of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. A litigant proceeding pro se
“must be litigating an interest personal to him.” Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998)

Case 1:20-cv-05151-GHW Document 5 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2

(“[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear on another person’s
behalf in the other’s cause.”). However, “[w]here a district court, after appropriate inquiry into the
particular circumstances of the matter at hand, determines that a non-attorney parent who brings an
SSI appeal on behalf his or her children has a sufficient interest in the case and meets basic
standards of competence, we hold that in such cases a non-attorney parent may bring an action on
behalf of his or her child without representation by an attorney.” Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103,
107 (2d Cir. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to submit a letter to the Court by August 13,
2020 explaining why Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of Mr. Sanchez and Plaintiff ’s interest in
this case, including whether Plaintiff is Mr. Sanchez’s parent and whether Mr. Sanchez is a minor.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not
be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good
faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 11, 2020

_____________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge