Garcia v. Social Security Administration
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-07170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Swain granted Garcia 30 more days to file an amended complaint.
Samantha Garcia, on behalf of S.S., and the Commissioner of Social Security. The order primarily affects Garcia’s deadline and the conditions for continuing the action.
What happened
Samantha Garcia, on behalf of S.S., sued the Commissioner of Social Security. In Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously ordered her to explain whether she completed the required administrative process before filing in federal court, or why that requirement should be excused.
Garcia asked for more time to file an amended complaint. The court granted the request and gave her 30 days from the order’s date to submit the amended complaint.
The court did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute. It warned that failure to meet the deadline without a good reason would lead to dismissal without prejudice, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Social Security Administration · No. 1:22-cv-07170
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
Samantha Garcia, on behalf of S.S., brought this action without a lawyer against the Commissioner of Social Security. In an earlier order dated September 7, 2022, the court gave Garcia 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to show that she had exhausted the required administrative remedies with the Social Security Administration before filing in federal court, or allege facts explaining why the exhaustion requirement should be excused.
The court received Garcia’s letter requesting an extension of time on October 24, 2022.
Ruling
The court granted Garcia’s request for an extension of time. It directed her to submit an amended complaint within 30 days of the October 25, 2022 order.
The court stated that if Garcia failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, it would dismiss the action without prejudice to her filing a new action after exhausting her administrative remedies. The order therefore did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.