Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-00409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Furman granted dismissal and closed the case after Santiago failed to respond to the motion or show-cause order.
Belen Santiago’s case against the Commissioner of Social Security was dismissed, and the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Commissioner asked the court to dismiss Belen Santiago’s complaint. Santiago did not oppose the motion, so the court ordered her to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed or the case dismissed for failing to pursue it.
Santiago did not respond to that order either. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, also relying substantially on the reasons in the Commissioner’s filing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman declined to give Santiago permission to amend the complaint because the court concluded that the problems with her claim were substantive and could not be fixed by better pleading. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to Santiago.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-00409
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
The Commissioner of Social Security moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on February 26, 2024. Belen Santiago did not file an opposition. On March 26, 2024, the court ordered Santiago to show good cause by April 9, 2024, why the motion should not be treated as unopposed. The court warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment or failure to prosecute under Rule 41. Santiago did not respond to the order or file an opposition.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41. It also dismissed the case substantially for the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s memorandum of law. The opinion does not describe those reasons in detail.
The court also declined to allow Santiago to amend the complaint on its own initiative. It stated that the problems with her claim were substantive and that better pleading would not cure them. The court ordered the clerk to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Santiago at the addresses identified in the order. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.