Filed: Oct. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . This matter is before me sua sponte. Plaintiff filed her complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits on September 24, 2015. Appended to her Complaint [#1] 1 as an exhibit was a Motion and Affidavit for Leave To Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 [#1-2]. Procedurally, this filing was improper, as the m
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . This matter is before me sua sponte. Plaintiff filed her complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits on September 24, 2015. Appended to her Complaint [#1] 1 as an exhibit was a Motion and Affidavit for Leave To Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 [#1-2]. Procedurally, this filing was improper, as the mo..
More
ORDER
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
This matter is before me sua sponte. Plaintiff filed her complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits on September 24, 2015. Appended to her Complaint [#1]1 as an exhibit was a Motion and Affidavit for Leave To Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 [#1-2]. Procedurally, this filing was improper, as the motion should have been filed as a separate entry on the docket. Moreover, the affidavit was captioned under and signed by a plaintiff in a different, presumably unrelated case (Mares v. Colvin, Civil Case No. 15-cv-01988-REB). The clerk of the court notified counsel for plaintiff of these discrepancies and ordered him to pay the filing fee post haste. (See Administrative Notice [#6], filed September 29, 2015.) However, as of the date of this order, counsel for plaintiff has failed to comply with this directive or alternatively submit a proper IFP motion.
Therefore, and in order to continue the expeditious prosecution of this case, I find that it is necessary to enter this Order directing plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit a proper motion and affidavit for leave to proceed IFP.2
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that on or before October 22, 2015, plaintiff shall either pay the filing fee or submit a procedurally and substantively proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, failing which, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
