Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
5
ORDER Granting Motion To Proceed Informa Pauperis (Docs. 2 , 4 ), ORDER Directing Clerk To Issue Summons And Social Security Case Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/1/2013. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
STYAUNO CARTER,
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00782 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED
INFORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. 2, 4)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
DOCUMENTS
17
On May 24, 2013, Styauno Carter (“Plaintiff”) initiated an action seeking judicial review of a
18
determination of the Social Security Administration (Doc. 1). In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion to
19
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The Court found Plaintiff failed to provide information in his
20
motion, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended motion to
21
proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint are now before the Court.
22
I.
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “but a
23
24
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and]
25
that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court
26
has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended application and has determined that it satisfies the requirements of
27
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.
28
///
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.
PLEADING STANDARDS
10
General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
11
pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the
12
claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may
13
include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
14
A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and
15
succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The
16
purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds
17
upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The
18
Supreme Court noted,
19
20
21
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.
22
23
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
24
Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d
25
266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
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
2
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
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 678 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should
5
assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief;
6
conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant
7
leave to amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.
8
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
9
IV.
10
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint indicates his application and appeal for Social Security benefits
11
have been denied, and he seeks review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security
12
denying benefits. (Doc. 1 at 2-3). The Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
13
§ 405(g), which provides in relevant part:
14
15
16
17
18
19
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.
20
Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
21
reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme Court
22
noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility
23
claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977).
24
Plaintiff asserts an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision on February 17,
25
2012. (Doc. 1 at 2). The Appeals Council denied his request for review on April 19, 2013, at which
26
time the decision of the administrative law judge became the decision of the Commissioner. Id. Thus,
27
Plaintiff seeks timely judicial review of the decision to deny benefits, and the Court has jurisdiction
28
over the action.
3
1
2
3
V.
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:
4
1.
Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2 and 4) are GRANTED;
5
2.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Commissioner
of Social Security;
6
7
3.
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; and
10
4.
Plaintiff SHALL complete and submit to the Court the “Notice of Submission of
Documents in Social Security Appeal Form.”
11
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 1, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?