Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2022

Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty Administration

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-09251
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Judge Swain denied an extension as unnecessary and denied appeal-related IFP status.

Who this affects

John Pickering-George’s request for more time to file a notice of appeal was denied as unnecessary because his notice was timely. He was also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.

What happened

In John Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Pickering-George challenged a Social Security decision and asked to file the case without paying the filing fee. The court had previously denied that request and dismissed the action, then denied his request for reconsideration.

Pickering-George filed a notice of appeal from the reconsideration order and asked for more time to appeal. The court found that he had filed the notice within the required 30-day period, so it denied the request for more time as unnecessary.

Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pickering-George permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pickering-George v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty Administration · No. 1:21-cv-09251
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 29, 2022

Background

John Pickering-George filed this lawsuit without a lawyer to seek review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying or terminating his application for disability benefits. He also asked to file the lawsuit and proceed without paying filing fees. The court had previously barred him from filing a new action without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying those fees.

On January 10, 2022, the court found that Pickering-George had not shown good cause to file the new action without paying the fee, denied permission to do so, and dismissed the action. On February 22, 2022, the court denied his motion asking the court to reconsider that order.

Motion and Ruling

Pickering-George filed a notice of appeal from the February 22 order and moved under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for more time to file the notice. The court explained that a notice of appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after the order or judgment being challenged. Because Pickering-George filed his notice within 30 days of the February 22 order, the court denied the extension request as unnecessary.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal from this order. The order did not decide the underlying Social Security benefits question.

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.