Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-05151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Suarez v. Commissioner, Judge Woods denied IFP status without prejudice and required a signature and explanation about suing for Christopher Sanchez.
Jennifer Suarez, who filed without a lawyer on behalf of Christopher Sanchez, must provide a signed complaint, a completed fee-waiver application, and an explanation of her authority and interest in bringing the case.
What happened
In Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Jennifer Suarez filed a Social Security case on behalf of Christopher Sanchez without a lawyer. The complaint was missing a handwritten signature, and Suarez’s application to proceed without paying court fees was incomplete.
The court ordered Suarez to send an original signature page and a completed fee-waiver application by August 13, 2020. It also ordered Suarez to explain why she was bringing the case for Sanchez, including whether she was Sanchez’s parent and whether Sanchez was a minor.
Judge Woods denied the application to proceed without paying fees without prejudice and denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying Social Security claim.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-05151
- Gregory Woods
- July 13, 2020
Background
Jennifer Suarez brought the action without a lawyer on behalf of Christopher Sanchez. The complaint did not include the required personal signature. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and the applicable local rule require an unrepresented party to sign a pleading personally.
Suarez also applied to proceed without prepaying court fees, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, or IFP. The court stated that Suarez had not completed all of question 2 on the IFP application, so the court could not grant the request.
The court further explained that a person generally cannot represent another person in court without a lawyer. It noted an exception that may allow a non-attorney parent to bring a Supplemental Security Income appeal for a child after the court examines the circumstances, the parent’s interest, and basic competence. The opinion did not determine whether Suarez qualified for that exception.
Court’s actions
The court directed Suarez to submit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature by August 13, 2020. It denied Suarez’s IFP application without prejudice and directed her to submit a completed application by the same date.
The court also directed Suarez to submit a letter explaining why she brought the claim on behalf of Sanchez and describing her interest in the case, including whether she was Sanchez’s parent and whether Sanchez was a minor.
Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Gregory H. Woods did not rule on the merits of the underlying Social Security claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.