Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nick Spagnolo v. United States Social Security Administration

January 11, 2012

NICK SPAGNOLO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Alan Ezra United States District Judge

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) DISMISSING THE ACTION

On June 2, 2011, Plaintiff Nick Spagnolo ("Plaintiff") filed a four-page complaint relating to claims for disability, Social Security Disability, Insurance benefits, and Supplemental Security Income benefits. (See Doc. # 1.) Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees. (Doc. # 2.)

On June 17, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi issued a Findings and Recommendation that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend and that his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees be denied. (Doc. # 6.) Judge Puglisi found that the Complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 8 because Plaintiff "has not alleged facts sufficient to show that he has exhausted his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review." (Id. at 4.) Judge Puglisi meticulously reviewed Plaintiff's exhibits attached to the Complaint, (id. at 6--7,) and ultimately concluded that Plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies. (Id. at 7--8.) Because Judge Puglisi found the Complaint wanting, he also recommended that "Plaintiff's Application be denied and that Plaintiff be given leave to file another Application if he chooses to file an amended complaint." (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff objected thereafter. (See Doc. # 9.) On July 19, 2011, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Objections and adopting Judge Puglisi's Findings and Recommendation. (Doc. # 14.)

Plaintiff subsequently filed three documents that appeared to comprise his amended Complaint. The documents are entitled: (1) "Amended Pleading -Order Dated June 17, 2011" (Doc. # 13), (2) "Supplemental Pleading: To Amend Pleading Dated July 15, 2011" (Doc. # 16), and (3) "Amendment - Damages" (Doc. # 18) (collectively, "Amended Pleadings"). On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Second Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. # 27.)

On August 30, 2011, Judge Puglisi issued a Findings and Recommendation that Plaintiff's Second Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees be denied and that Plaintiff's Amended Pleadings be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. # 28.) Judge Puglisi found, "[t]he claims in Plaintiff's amended pleadings are essentially the same claims that the court previously found to be deficient because Plaintiff had failed to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction." (Id. at 6.)

On September 21, 2011, this Court issued an Order Adopting in Part and Modifying in Part the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. (Doc. # 34.) This Court held that it agreed with Judge Puglisi that Plaintiff's Amended Pleadings should be dismissed for failing to sufficiently allege jurisdiction and failing to comply with Rule 8. (Id. at 9.) The Court also noted that "Judge Puglisi has now twice made clear to Plaintiff what he must plead in order to demonstrate he has exhausted his administrative remedies." (Id. at 8.) However, given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court gave Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his Complaint. (Id. at 9.) The Court advised Plaintiff as follows:

* Plaintiff's amended Complaint shall be comprised of a single document.

* Plaintiff must succinctly and clearly state the dates of the state's adverse determinations he is challenging.

* Plaintiff must then state specifically when he sought reconsideration of those determinations.

* Plaintiff must next provide the dates he presented his complaints to an Administrative Law judge.

* Plaintiff must provide the dates on which he sought review of the Administrative Law judge's adverse decision before the Appeals Counsel.

* Plaintiff must finally provide the date in which the Appeals Counsel denied his requests for review.

All of this must be done clearly and coherently; the Court will no longer tolerate confused and unorganized pleadings. A failure to comply with any aspect of these directions will result in dismissal of these proceedings with prejudice. (Id. at 9--10.) Plaintiff was given thirty days to amend his Complaint and refile his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a Third Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees but did not file an amended Complaint. (Doc. # 35.)

On September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recuse this Judge from presiding over this case. (Doc. # 37.) Judge Puglisi issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal. (Doc. # 38.) On October 26, 2011, this Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion and granting Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an amended Complaint.*fn1 (Doc. # ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.