Richard M. v. O'Malley
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:19-cv-00827
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Richard M. v. Andrew Saul, Judge Menendez stayed the Social Security case pending related Eighth Circuit appeals.
Richard M. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case will not proceed until the specified Eighth Circuit appeals are resolved.
What happened
Richard M. asked the court to decide his Social Security case after related appeals in the Eighth Circuit were resolved. Both sides agreed that pausing the case was appropriate.
The court stayed the case until those appeals were decided. It said waiting would simplify the issues, save judicial resources, and not seriously harm Richard M.
Judge Menendez declined to decide Richard M.’s request for additional briefing at this time. The parties must contact the court within 14 days after the appeals are decided to ask that the stay be lifted or request other relief.
The detailed version
- Richard M. v. O'Malley · No. 0:19-cv-00827
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
This Social Security case was pending before the District of Minnesota. The court had asked the parties to state their positions on pausing the case while the Eighth Circuit considered consolidated appeals in four related proceedings: Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 18-3422; Thurman v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 18-3451; Iwan v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 18-3452; and Hilliard v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 19-1169.
Both parties said they did not object to a stay. Richard M. also requested limited additional briefing after the Eighth Circuit resolved the appeals.
Ruling
The court ordered that the case be stayed pending the outcome of the consolidated appeals. It reasoned that waiting would simplify the issues, conserve judicial resources, and would not severely prejudice Richard M. The court directed the parties to contact it within 14 days after the Eighth Circuit issued its decision to request lifting the stay or seek other appropriate relief.
The court declined to rule on Richard M.’s request for supplemental briefing at that time. It stated that he could renew the request when the parties asked to lift the stay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.