Eshraghi v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
6
ORDER Granting 5 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDER Directing Clerk to Issue Summons and Social Security Case Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 06/20/2013. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHOA ESHRAGHI,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00936 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. 3,4)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
DOCUMENTS
17
Shoa Eshraghi (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action seeking judicial
18
19
review of a determination of the Social Security Administration denying his application for benefits.
20
Pending before the Court are the complaint (Doc. 2) and motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs.
21
3 and 4) filed by Plaintiff on June 19, 2013.
22
I.
Proceeding 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
reviewed the applications and determined Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
27
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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague and
24
conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
25
(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
standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer
2
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
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should
4
assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief;
5
conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant
6
leave to amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.
7
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
8
IV.
Discussion and Analysis
9
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability
10
benefits. (Doc. 2). The Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides
11
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. (emphasis added). Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the
19
Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
20
These regulations “operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a claimant may
21
appeal a final decision of the Commissioner.” Berrigan v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115390, at
22
*4-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews
23
v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). The time limit is a condition on the waiver of sovereign
24
immunity, and it must be strictly construed. Id.
25
According to Plaintiff, the Appeals Council denied his request for review of the decision
26
rendered by the administrative law judge on April 19, 2013, at which time the decision became the
27
final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 2 at 2). Therefore, Plaintiff seeks timely review of the
28
decision to deny benefits, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter.
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 (Doc. 3, 4) are GRANTED;
5
2.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Carolyn
Colvin, Acting 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:
June 20, 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?