Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 29, 2020

Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-08597
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSocial Security
In one sentence

Pickering-George v. Commissioner was dismissed without prejudice for failure to obtain required filing permission, Judge McMahon ruled.

Who this affects

John Thomas Pickering-George’s new action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not obtain the required permission to file while seeking to proceed without paying the filing fee; the court did not reach the Social Security issue.

What happened

In Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court treated John Thomas Pickering-George’s submission as a new case because an earlier case had been closed to further filings. The submission appeared to seek review of a Social Security decision, but it did not identify the decision or its date.

A 2008 order barred Pickering-George from filing any new action without paying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission to file. Because he did not pay the required filing fees, the court presumed that he sought to proceed without paying them, but he did not request the required permission.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the 2008 filing restriction. The court also ruled that any appeal would not qualify for permission to proceed without paying appellate fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-08597
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Oct. 29, 2020

Background

John Thomas Pickering-George submitted papers captioned as an action against the Commissioner of Social Security. He labeled the papers with the case number from an earlier Social Security case, but the Clerk opened the submission as this new civil action because the earlier case had been closed to further filings.

The earlier case involved a request for review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a decision denying Pickering-George’s application for benefits. In that case, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison remanded the matter to the Commissioner for additional administrative proceedings. After Pickering-George continued filing documents, Judge Davison stated that the case was closed and that further filings would not be considered. The order explained that review of later Commissioner decisions would require a new civil action.

A separate August 25, 2008 order by Judge Kimba M. Wood barred Pickering-George from filing any new action without paying the required fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission to file. The current submission did not identify the Social Security decision being challenged or its date.

Court’s Analysis

The court noted that Pickering-George had not paid the $400 filing fee for this new action. It therefore presumed that he sought to proceed without paying the fee. Under the 2008 order, however, he also needed to obtain permission from the court before filing such an action. He had not requested that permission.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to comply with the 2008 order. The opinion did not decide whether the Commissioner’s decision was legally or factually correct. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fee.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to mail Pickering-George a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

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.