Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 21, 2019

Brito v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:19-cv-10631
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Brito v. Commissioner, Judge Karas set case deadlines and denied Brito’s counsel request without prejudice because the case was too new to assess.

Who this affects

Deyanira Brito and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order also directs filings by the parties and addresses Brito’s request for appointed counsel.

What happened

Brito v. Commissioner of Social Security is a Social Security case brought by Deyanira Brito without a lawyer. The court waived the filing fee and ordered notice to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The court set deadlines for the Commissioner to file the certified administrative record or respond, for any motion for judgment on the pleadings, and for Brito’s response and the Commissioner’s reply. It also set page limits for the parties’ written submissions.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Brito’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning she may renew it later. The court said it was too early to evaluate the case’s merits and decide whether counsel was needed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brito v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-10631
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Nov. 21, 2019

Background

Deyanira Brito filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the law allowing judicial review of a Social Security decision. The opinion identifies Brito as proceeding without a lawyer and states that the filing fee was waived. The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Scheduling order

The court ordered the Commissioner to serve and file the electronic certified administrative record within 90 days of the order or otherwise respond to the complaint. The record would serve as the Commissioner’s answer. If the Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, that motion was due within 60 days after the electronic record was filed and had to describe the relevant facts and the underlying administrative proceeding.

Brito’s answering brief would be due within 60 days after the Commissioner’s motion, and the Commissioner could file a reply within 21 days after that. Supporting and opposing memoranda were limited to 25 pages, and reply memoranda were limited to 10 pages. A party seeking more pages had to ask the court for permission at least seven days before the filing deadline and provide copies to all counsel.

Request for counsel

Brito asked the court to appoint counsel. The court identified the relevant considerations as the merits of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. It stated that the merits receive the most attention among those factors.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Brito’s request for counsel without prejudice because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits. The order did not decide whether Brito was entitled to Social Security benefits or whether the Commissioner’s decision was legally correct.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.