Werlein 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, Social Security Case Documents, And Scheduling Order, ORDER Directing Plaintiff To Complete The Service Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/17/2014. (Attachments: # 1 USM Social Security Instructions) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LORI WERLEIN,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01383- JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLETE
THE SERVICE DOCUMENTS

Lori Werlein (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed with an action for judicial review of the

18
19

administrative decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. Pending before the Court

20

are the complaint (Doc. 1) and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).

21

I.

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

22
23

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

24

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

25

has reviewed the application and finds Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

26

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

27

II.

28

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

25, 32-33 (1992).

7

III.

PLEADING STANDARDS

8

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

9

pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the

10

claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may

11

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

12

A complaint must state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and succinct manner.

13

Jones v. Cmty Redevel. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of a complaint is to

14

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

15

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

16

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.

17
18
19

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

20

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

21

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

22
23
24
25

[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.’

26
27

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should

28

assume the truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; conclusions
2

1

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

2

amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

3

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

4

IV.

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

5
6

were denied. (Doc. 1 at 1.) She seeks review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security

7

to deny benefits. Id. The Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

8

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.

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). The Supreme Court

16

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

17

claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977).
Here, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on June 17, 2014, at which

18
19

time the decision of the administrative law judge became the decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at

20

2.) Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file this action, which was granted by the Appeals

21

Council on August 19, 2014. (Id.) Because Plaintiff seeks timely judicial review, the Court has

22

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

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 17, 2014

/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