Elichai v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ), ORDER Directing Clerk To Issue Summons And Social Security Case Documents, ORDER Directing United States Marshal For Service Of Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/26/2013. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAILA AHAVA ELICHAI, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01903- JLT ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE SUMMONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY CASE DOCUMENTS ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF COMPLAINT Laila Ahava Elichai (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial 19 20 review of the administrative decision denying her application for Social Security benefits. Pending 21 before the Court are the complaint (Doc. 1) and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) filed by 22 Plaintiff on November 22, 2013. 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 the application and finds Plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s claim 6 is 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 state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and succinct manner. 15 Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of the 16 complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds upon which 17 the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court 18 explained, 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 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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 F.2d 24 266, 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 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.’ 2 1 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 2 assume the truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; conclusions 3 in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to 4 amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 5 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 7 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint indicates her application and appeal for Social Security benefits 8 have been denied, and she seeks review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to 9 deny benefits. (Doc. 1 at 1-2). The Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 10 405(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. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 17 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme Court 18 noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility 19 claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Plaintiff asserts the Appeals Council denied 20 her request for review on September 27, 2013, at which time the decision of the administrative law 21 judge became the decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at 2). Because Plaintiff seeks timely judicial 22 review, the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 23 V. 24 25 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: 26 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; 27 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Carolyn W. 28 Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; 3 1 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security Case 2 Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent 3 Form, and USM-285 Forms; and 4 4. 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. 5 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 26, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 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?