Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 6

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed in Forma Paupers 2 3 and ORDER DISMISSING Complaint with Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/15/2012. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
BEVERLY JEAN GIBSON,

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00945 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. 2-3)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

16
17

Beverly Jean Gibson (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed pro se with an action seeking judicial

18

review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing

19

a complaint and motions to proceed in forma pauperis on June 11, 2012 (Docs. 1-3).

20

I.

Proceeding in forma paueris
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “but a

21
22

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and]

23

that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court

24

has reviewed the applications and has determined Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §

25

1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff‟s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.

26

II.

Screening Requirement

27

When an individual is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the

28

complaint, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty
1

1

is untrue, or the action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may

2

be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

3

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). In addition, the Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over

4

the matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983).

5

III.

Pleading Standards
General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A

6
7

pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court‟s jurisdiction, “a short

8

and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the

9

relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less

11

stringent standards” than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21

12

(1972).

13

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff‟s claim in a plain and

14

succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The

15

purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds

16

upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The

17

Supreme Court noted,

18
19
20

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me unlawfully accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.

21
22

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

23

Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673

24

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

25
26
27
28

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The
plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint
2

1
2

pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant‟s liability, it “stops short of
the line between possibility and plausibility of „entitlement to relief.

3

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Where the factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth

4

and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; conclusions in the pleading

5

are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

6

state a cognizable claim, the Court may grant leave to amend to the extent that deficiencies of the

7

complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000).

8

A.

Jurisdiction

9

Construed liberally, Plaintiff appears to be seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner

10

of Social Security denying disability benefits. The Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42

11

U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in relevant part:

12
13
14
15
16
17

Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to
which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of
such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of
such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. Such action
shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in
which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business . . .The court shall
have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,
with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.

18

Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be

19

reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme Court

20

noted that the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale

21

eligibility claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977).

22

Here, Plaintiff failed to provide any facts upon which the Court‟s jurisdiction depends.

23

Notably, the documents filed by Plaintiff were a sample complaint explaining how a pro se plaintiff

24

may file a document, the civil cover sheet, and proofs of service. Within these documents, Plaintiff

25

has not alleged that a final administrative decision was made in her case; she has not identified the

26

type of the administrative proceeding, nor has she provided the date of the decision or the date upon

27

which notice of the decision was mailed for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff‟s request for

28

judicial review is timely.
3

1

B.

2

The Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, supplement

3

the Federal Rules. Under Local Rule 206, the following information must be included in a complaint:

4

(1) In actions involving claims for retirement, survivors, disability, health insurance and
black lung benefits, the last four digits of the social security number of the worker on
whose wage record the application for benefits was filed (who may or may not be the
plaintiff); or

5
6

Requirements of the Local Rules

(2) In actions involving claims for supplemental security income benefits, the last four
digits of social security number of the plaintiff.

7
8
9

LR 206. Plaintiff‟s complaint indicates that she seeks benefits that come within this rule. Therefore,

10

Plaintiff‟s complaint was not in compliance with the Local Rules, as it should contain the last four

11

digits of her Social Security number.

12

IV.

13

Leave to Amend the Complaint
If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted

14

to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203

15

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be

16

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that

17

the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims

18

that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley

19

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners’ Ass’n., Inc.,

20

651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

21

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that he has alleged and that

22

an opportunity to amend would be futile. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128.

23

Here the Court cannot find with certainty that Plaintiff cannot allege facts, consistent with

24

allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would entitle her to relief. Plaintiff states her cause

25

of action is bought pursuant to 42 US.C. § 405(g) because her disability benefits were denied. (Doc.

26

1-1). Thus, it appears Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision denying him benefits, but it is not

27

clear whether the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend

28
4

1

the complaint to cure the deficiencies of this complaint by stating the necessary information. Failure

2

to cure the deficiencies will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed.
Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make her

3
4

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in

5

itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

6

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an

7

amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.
The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled

8
9

“First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will

10

be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 110 and will

11

result in dismissal of this action.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

13

1.

Plaintiff‟s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2-3) are GRANTED;

14

2.

Plaintiff‟s complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

15

3.

Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order to

16

file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the

17

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

June 15, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

24
25
26
27
28
5