Waheed v. Frank J. Bisignano in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Social…
Sehra Waheed v. Frank J. Bisignano in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ET AL.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-07751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sehra Waheed v. Bisignano, Judge Carter granted amendment and hearing motions but denied appointed counsel and moot ECF-access requests.
Sehra Waheed and the parties to the case, whose requests to amend the complaint and hold a hearing were granted, while the requests for appointed counsel and electronic filing access were denied.
What happened
In Sehra Waheed v. Frank J. Bisignano, the court considered requests to amend the complaint, hold an emergency virtual hearing, appoint counsel, and provide electronic filing access.
The court granted the motion to file an amended complaint and granted the request for a virtual hearing. It ordered the parties to appear for a telephonic conference on December 2, 2025, at 4:30 p.m.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the request for appointed counsel. He also denied the request for electronic filing access as moot because a separate order had already granted that access. The court stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Waheed v. Frank J. Bisignano in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Social… · No. 1:25-cv-07751
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 26, 2025
Motions Before the Court
The court considered three motions by Sehra Waheed: a motion to amend the complaint, a motion for an emergency virtual hearing, and a motion for court-appointed counsel and electronic filing access.
Rulings
The court granted the motion to file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
The court also granted the motion for a virtual hearing. It ordered the parties to appear for a telephonic conference before the court on December 2, 2025, at 4:30 p.m., and provided a telephone number and access code.
The court denied the request for appointed counsel. It explained that, unlike in a criminal case, a person is not entitled to a court-appointed attorney in a civil case.
The court denied as moot the request for electronic filing access because a separate order had already granted that access. A request is moot when there is no longer a live issue for the court to decide.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Finally, the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the three motions listed at Docket Nos. 23, 25, and 27.
Effect of the Order
This order resolves the listed procedural requests. It does not decide the underlying merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.