# Ortiz

> District Court, S.D. New York · April 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11391115

## Case

- **Full name:** Nancy Ortiz, Mother of Jasmine Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** April 14, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11391115

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
NANCY ORTIZ, Mother of JASMINE
BROWN,

Plaintiff, 25 Civ. 8416 (JAV) (GS)

-against- REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
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 adult 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
an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)’s decision dated July 2, 2024. (Id.). The ALJ
decision determined that Brown’s disability ended on August 1, 2019 and that she
was not eligible for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits after that date.
(Dkt. No. 8 at 73–83).
As explained below, due to Ortiz’s failure to respond to the Court’s orders
requiring her to explain why she should be permitted to represent the interests of
her adult daughter pro se, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this action

1 The Complaint in this action, as well as several other referenced documents in this Report &
Recommendation, have been filed under seal.
be DISMISSED without prejudice unless Ortiz, within 30 days from any Order
adopting this Report & Recommendation, either makes a proper showing that she
can proceed pro se or retains counsel for this action.2

DISCUSSION
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). “Moreover, ‘a district court has a duty
to raise this issue sua sponte.’” Drews v. Goldollar Real Est. Invs., No. 24 Civ. 6697
(LLS), 2025 WL 2144728, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2025) (quoting Thomas v. Astrue,
674 F. Supp. 2d 507, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). 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 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 Second
Circuit 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.

2 On January 20, 2026, the Honorable Jeannette A. Vargas referred this matter to the undersigned.
(Dkt. No. 7). As the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, the undersigned lacks the authority to
dismiss this action, which is why this ruling is in the form of a Report & Recommendation to Judge
Vargas, who, as the district judge presiding over the case, does have such authority. As set forth
more fully in the Notice at the end of this ruling, Ortiz has the right to file objections before Judge
Vargas to this Report & Recommendation, provided she does so in a timely manner.
2
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, courts in this circuit have found that
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); Adelman v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 24 Civ. 6891 (EK), 2026 WL 698744, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12,
2026). In determining whether a parent’s interests are closely intertwined with
those of their adult child, courts consider 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. 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”); Adelman, 2026 WL 698744, at *1 n.1 (finding that parent could bring
suit on behalf of adult child where the “mother is [plaintiff’s] representative payee .
. . and any benefits she receives on her son’s behalf will defray the cost of his care”).
Furthermore, Machadio suggests that courts must examine the issue of an
SSI claimant being represented by a non-attorney parent before ruling on the
3
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 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, Brown turned 18 years old at the end of 2018 and was 24 years old
when this action was commenced in October 2025. (Dkt. No. 8 at 75). Because

Brown is an adult, the Court sua sponte raised the issue of Ortiz’s ability to
represent Brown pro se in an Order issued on February 10, 2026 (the “February
Order”). (Dkt. No. 10). The February Order summarized the case law above and
noted that Ortiz had not yet made any showing that her interests were sufficiently
closely intertwined with those of Brown to permit her to represent Brown in this
action pro se. (Id. at 1–3). The Court then directed Ortiz to submit a brief by

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.” (Id. at 3). The Order also
4
alerted Ortiz to legal services organizations that she might be able to turn to for
assistance. (Id. at 3–4 ).3 The Clerk’s Office mailed the February Order to the
address for Ortiz reflected on the docket. (See Docket Entry dated Feb. 11, 2026).

After the February 23 deadline for Plaintiff to submit her brief passed
without any filing, the Court issued another Order on March 2, 2026 (the “March
Order”), sua sponte extending that deadline to March 20, 2026. (Dkt. No. 11). In
the March Order, the Court warned Ortiz that it would not extend the deadline
again absent a timely request to do so and that “a failure to timely submit any brief
in connection with this order may result in the recommendation of dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims.” (Id.). The Clerk’s Office mailed the March Order to Ortiz at her

address. (See Docket Entry dated March 3, 2026).
Despite these orders, the Court has received no filings from Ortiz.
Accordingly, the Court is unable to evaluate whether Ortiz’s and Brown’s interests
are sufficiently closely intertwined to afford Ortiz the ability to represent Brown in
this action pro se. Given the teachings of such cases as Machadio, Perlman, and H.-
B., therefore, the Court cannot find that Ortiz may proceed pro se in this action.

Absent an adequate showing by Ortiz that she can proceed pro se, she can only
prosecute this action if counsel is retained.

3 The February Order also stayed Plaintiff’s deadline for filing her motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which had been due on February 26, 2026, pending resolution of the representation issue.
(Id. at 3; Docket Entry accompanying Dkt. No. 8).
5
For these reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends: (i) that Plaintiff
be given 30 days from the date of any Order by Judge Vargas adopting this Report
& Recommendation either to make a proper showing that she may proceed pro se or
to retain counsel for this action; and (ii) that if, at the end of that 30-day period,
Ortiz has done neither, this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATED: New York, New York
April 14, 2026

The Honorable Gary Stein
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS
TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties
shall have fourteen days, inclusive of weekends and holidays, from service of this
Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. See also Fed. R. Civ.
6(a), (b), and (d). Any such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of Court. Any
request for an extension of time to file objections must be directed to the Honorable
Jeannette A. Vargas. A failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate
review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v.
Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d
Cir. 2010).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11391115. Public record. Not legal advice.