Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 8

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Issue Summons; ORDER DIRECTING United States Marshal for Service of Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/2/12. (Hellings, J)

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 DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS
ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

16
Beverly Jean Gibson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with an action seeking judicial review

17
18

of a determination of the Social Security Administration. The Court granted Plaintiffs‟ motion to

19

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on June 15, 2012. (Doc.

20

6). On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), which is now before the Court

21

for screening.

22

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the

23
24

complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or

25

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant

26

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the

27

Court must screen Plaintiffs‟ Amended Complaint to ensure Plaintiff states a cognizable claim.

28

///
1

1
2

II.

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

stringent standards” than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).

8
9

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff‟s claim in a plain and
succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The

10

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

11

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

12

Supreme Court noted,

13
14
15

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 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.

16
17

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

18

Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

19

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

20
21
22
23
24

[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 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.‟

25

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should

26

assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief;

27

conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant

28
2

1

leave to amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.

2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

3

III.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiff‟s Amended Complaint indicates her application and appeal for Social Security

4
5

benefits have been denied, and she seeks review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social

6

Security denying benefits. (Doc. 7 at 2). The Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 42

7

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

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

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

15

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

16

Plaintiff attached the Notice of Appeals Council to her Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7 at 11).

17

The Notice indicates the Appeals Council denied her request for review on April 12, 2012, at which

18

time the decision of the administrative law judge became the decision of the Commissioner. Id.

19

Accordingly, Plaintiff requested timely review of the decision to deny benefits, and the Court has

20

jurisdiction over the matter.

21

IV.

22
23
24

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff‟s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision

denying Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

of Social Security;

25
26

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Commissioner

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security Case

27

Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent

28

Form, and USM-285 Forms;
3

3.

1

Plaintiff SHALL complete and submit to the Court the “Notice of Submission of
Documents in Social Security Appeal Form;” and

2
4.

3

The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7),
summons, and this order upon the defendant as directed by Plaintiff in the USM Forms.

4
5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated:

July 2, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4