Bingle v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING 3 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Issue Summons; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Issue Summons; ORDER DIRECTING United States Marshal for Service of Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/5/12. (Attachments: # 1 USM Social Security Instructions) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
ROGER GLENN BINGLE,

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01967 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED
INFORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 3)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS
ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

18
Roger Glenn Bingle (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se with an action

19
20

seeking judicial review of a determination of the Social Security Administration. Pending before the

21

Court are the complaint (Doc. 2) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) filed by

22

Plaintiff on December 3, 2012.

23

I.

24

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “but a

25

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

26

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

27

has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and determined it satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

28

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
1

1

II.

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

2
3

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

4

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

5

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

6

frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or

7

not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

8

25, 32-33 (1992).

9

III.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

complaint should give a defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and grounds upon which the

19

complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,

20

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.

21
22
23
24

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

25

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

26

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

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
2

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.’

1
2
3
4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

IV.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint indicates his application and appeal for Social Security benefits

11
12

have been denied, and he seeks review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security

13

denying benefits. (Doc. 2 at 1-2). The Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

14

§ 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.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

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

22

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

23

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

24

claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Plaintiff asserts the Appeals Council issued a

25

decision on October 2, 2012, at which time the decision of the administrative law judge became the

26

decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 2 at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks timely review of the

27

decision to deny benefits, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

28

///
3

1

V.

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision

2
3

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

4

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is GRANTED;

5

2.

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

6
3.

7

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

8

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

9

Form, and USM-285 Forms;
4.

10

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

11
5.

12

The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the complaint, summons, and this
order upon the defendant as directed by Plaintiff in the USM Forms.

13
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated:

December 5, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4