Celedon v. CSS

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 Service Of The Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/1/2016. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARYANN CELEDON,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00440 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 2)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF THE
COMPLAINT

17
18

Plaintiff Maryann Celedon seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review

19

of the administrative decision denying her application for Social Security benefits. Pending before the

20

Court are the complaint and her request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the

21

Court finds service of the complaint is appropriate.

22

I.

Proceeding in forma pauperis
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by 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 affidavits regarding Plaintiff’s finaincial status, and finds she satisfies the requirements of

27

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 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 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 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,

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). Vague

23

and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

24

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

19
20

25
26
27

[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

28
2

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 679 (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; legal

5

conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a

6

complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith,

7

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. 1) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in

11

relevant part:

12
13
14
15
16

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.

17

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

18

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

19

Here, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he issued a decision denying plaintiff's claim for benefits on

20

December 1, 2015.” (Doc. 1 at 2) Significantly, the matter was before the ALJ pursuant to a remand

21

ordered by this Court in Celedon v. Comm’r of Social Security, Case No. 1:13-cv-00449-SMS.1 If

22

claimant does not file an exception disagreeing with the ALJ and the Appeals Council does not assume

23

jurisdiction over the decision, the ALJ’s written decision is a “final decision of the Commissioner after

24
1

25
26
27
28

Although Plaintiff fails to allege facts regarding her prior case, the Court’s records are subject to judicial notice.
Specifically, judicial notice may be taken of a fact that “is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally
known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333
(9th Cir. 1993). Because the records of court proceedings cannot reasonably be questioned, judicial notice may be taken of
the records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80
F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc.,
615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980). Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s prior request for judicial review of her
application for Social Security benefits, and the remand ordered by the Court in Case No. 1:13-cv-00449-SMS.

3

1

remand.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984(d). Accordingly, the ALJ’s conclusion became the “final decision” on

2

January 30, 2016. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984(b) (noting a decision becomes final 60 days after the

3

ALJ’s decision on remand). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review must have been filed no later than

4

April 4, 2016. Because Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 30, 2016 (Doc. 1), the request for judicial

5

review is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

6

V.

7
8

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:

9

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;

10

2.

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

11
12

3.

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

13

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

14

Form, and USM-285 Forms; and

15

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.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 1, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4