Carlson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/3/2016. Amended complaint due within 30 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHON KIM CARLSON,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15

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

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01459 - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 2)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

17
Plaintiff Shon Kim Carolson seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

18
19

seeking judicial review of a decision rendered by the Social Security Administration to deny her

20

application for benefits. (Docs. 1-2) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

21

forma pauperis is GRANTED, and her complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

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

27

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
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
2

the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.

1
2

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

3

assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

IV.

8

Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff asserts she “applied for disability benefits” and was denied. (Doc. 1 at 2) Therefore,

9

she is “respectfully asking the United States District Court for a court review.” (Id.) The Court may

10

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s disability applications pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in

11

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

Plaintiff asserts that the administrative law judge issued an opinion on April 3, 2015 and that

26

“SSDI has denied [her] request to review” that decision. (Doc. 1 at 2) However, Plaintiff fails to

27

provide information such as whether her request for review by the Appeals Council was timely, or

28

when the Appeals Council indicated it would not review the decision by the administrative law judge.
3

1

Without such information, the Court is unable to determine when a final decision was made on

2

Plaintiff’s application for benefits. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the Court has jurisdiction over

3

the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

4

VI.

5

Leave to Amend the Complaint
Leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

6

cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here the Court

7

cannot find with certainty that Plaintiff cannot allege facts supporting a finding that the Court has

8

jurisdiction over the matter. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to cure the

9

factual deficiencies of this complaint by stating the necessary information, including when the Appeals

10
11
12

Council responded to the request for review.
The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled
“First Amended Complaint.”

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

14

1.

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

15

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

16

3.

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

17

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the pertinent substantive

18

law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.

19

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint will be considered to be a failure to

20

comply with a Court’s order, and may result in dismissal of this action.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 3, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4