The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
NANCY ORTIZ, Mother of JASMINE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
25 Civ. 08416 (JAV) (GS)
-against-
ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
GARY STEIN, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Nancy Ortiz, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on behalf of her
daughter, Jasmine Brown, on October 10, 2025, seeking judicial review of a final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Dkt. No. 1).1 Attached to the Complaint was a
letter from the Social Security Administration Office of Appellate Operations dated August
8, 2025, denying Brown’s request for review of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
(Id.). The Certified Administrative Record in this matter was filed on January 27, 2026.
(Dkt. No. 8). From review of the record, Ortiz’s objective appears to be to reinstate
Brown’s Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits, which ceased on July 31, 2019.
(Id. at 90). Ortiz asserts this claim on behalf of her adult child, which raises a threshold
question of whether she may proceed pro se while doing so.
Generally, “a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an
action on behalf of his or her child.” Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc.,
906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990). However, the Second Circuit has also held that when “a
non-attorney parent who brings an SSI appeal on behalf [of] his or her children has a
1 The Complaint in this action, as well as all the other referenced documents in this Order, have been filed under
seal.
sufficient interest in the case and meets basic standards of competence,” that parent may
bring an action on behalf of his or her minor child pro se. Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103,
107 (2d Cir. 2002). In Machadio, the Court found that the parent’s and minor child’s
interests were “closely intertwined,” such that the district court did not err in allowing the
plaintiff to proceed on behalf of her child. Id. at 106.
When the child is an adult, however, courts have recognized that a sufficient overlap
of interests between parent and child may not exist. See, e.g., Perlman on behalf of Y.P. v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24 Civ. 4503 (LJL), 2025 WL 2676048, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 18,
2025). Nonetheless, parents are not categorically barred from bringing social security
actions on behalf of adult children. See id.; see also H.-B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 26
Civ. 425 (PAE) (BCM), 2026 WL 242251, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2026). Rather, factors
such as whether the parent has legal custody of the adult child, whether the parent has
assumed responsibility for the adult child’s care, and whether any SSI benefits would be
distributed to the adult child through the parent may determine whether a parent’s interests
are closely intertwined with that of their adult child. See Perlman, 2025 WL 2676048, at *3
(finding that parent was not a proper party to challenge denial of SSI benefits to his 20-year-
old son where he had not demonstrated that “he has custody of his son or that he has
assumed responsibility for [his son’s] care or that the benefits that would be paid to [the
son], were he to prevail in this case, would be distributed to [the son] through Plaintiff”).
Furthermore, Machadio suggests that courts must examine the issue of an SSI
claimant being represented by a non-attorney parent before ruling on the merits. See
Machadio, 276 F.3d at 107 (“Where a district court, after appropriate inquiry into the
particular circumstances of the matter at hand, determines that a non-attorney parent who
2
brings an SSI appeal on behalf his or her children has a sufficient interest in the case and
meets basic standards of competence, we hold that in such cases a non-attorney parent may
bring an action on behalf of his or her child without representation by an attorney.”); see
also H.-B., 2026 WL 242251, at *3 (describing issue of parent’s ability to represent adult
child pro se as a “threshold question[]”).
Here, Ortiz has not yet made any showing in the record that her interests are
sufficiently closely intertwined with those of Brown that it would be proper to allow her to
represent Brown in this action pro se. The Court will, however, allow Ortiz to make such a
showing. Ortiz is hereby directed to submit a brief by Monday, February 23, 2026
explaining what circumstances exist, if any, that warrant allowing her to represent Brown
pro se in this action, including why Brown is unable to represent herself pro se, whether
Ortiz has been appointed a guardian ad litem or otherwise has legal custody of or
responsibility for Brown, and what assurances the Court and the Social Security
Administration would have that any award of SSI benefits would be distributed to Brown.
The Commissioner shall have until Monday, March 9, 2026 to submit any opposition or
response. All interim deadlines, including Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,
are hereby stayed pending resolution of this inquiry.
In addition, Plaintiff is hereby put on notice that there are legal services available to
pro se plaintiffs which may be of use to her in this action. Attached to this order are
information sheets regarding pro se assistance in social security appeals through the New
York County Lawyers Association and general pro se resources offered by the City Bar
Justice Center. Plaintiff also is encouraged to utilize the resources of the Southern District’s
3
Pro Se Intake Unit, which may be contacted at (212)805-0175 or in person at 500 Pearl
Street, Room 250, during normal business hours (8:30 am — 5:00 pm), Monday - Friday.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: New York, New York 1 A
February 10, 2026 Cl). NV.
The Honorable Gary Stein
United States Magistrate Judge
COUNTY Lawyers
Association
Social Security
SDNY Project
Pro Bono Programs
To all individuals who have Social Security or Supplemental Security Income
cases:
The New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) has provided free legal assistance
to thousands of people who cannot afford lawyers. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may
qualify for free legal representation in your appeal in the Southern District of New York.
If you would like to consult with a lawyer, please call Carolyn A. Kubitschek at (212) 349-
0900. We cannot guarantee that everyone who calls will get a lawyer, but we are
committed to providing as many individuals as possible with free legal representation in
their federal appeals.
Sincerely,
Maria Bova
General Counsel & Director of Pro Bono Programs
todas las personas que tienen casos de Seguro Social o Seguridad de Ingreso
Suplementario:
El New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) ha brindado asistencia legal gratuita
a miles de personas que no pueden pagar un abogado. Si no puede pagar un abogado,
puede calificar para representacion legal gratuita en su apelacion en el tribunal del
‘Southern District of New York.’
Si desea consultar con un abogado, por favor llame a Carolyn A. Kubitschek al (212) 349-
0900. No podemos garantizar que todos los que llamen obtengan un abogado, pero
estamos comprometidos a brindar representacion legal gratuita al mayor numero posible
de personas en sus apelaciones federales.
Maria Bova
General y Directora de Programas Pro Bono
□□ a oe ol Sl Look oa
Soe DUis aa loa me) □□ NT=h" am ele aes BIND as a
ABOUT THE PROJECT
The Federal Pro Se Lega! Assistance Project provides limited assistance to self-
represented litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) with cases involving civil legal
matters in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(SDNY).
This project assists plaintiffs and defendants ona variety of federal legal issues,
including, among others, civil rights, employment discrimination, and disability
discrimination. The team also assists incarcerated individuals with civil (non-
criminal} claims.
HOW WE HELP
Fed Pro provides limited assistance through full-time attorneys, legal support
team members, pro bono (volunteer) attorneys, law school/college interns, anda
social work team. While we cannot provide full representation, Fed Pro can assist
litigants by providing limited-scope services such as:
Counseling about potential os Consulting on discovery
Ke federal claims prior to filing suit 28 matters
Interpreting and explaining £@@ Assisting with the settlement
federal law and procedure ‘S62, process (including mediation)
Reviewing drafted pleadings and
correspondence with the Court
0 ACCESS OUR SERVICES.
Bee leer ecee Creel) acm aatomers mela eit
Bw, RLLAS PALA ROE ETC e118 O10) LoTR ee
[eee _ □□□ ore eC ilacr ge (Lely □□
ee CER Re
eT Sd Cola PD eo OP
eo (tM Reon || ete