Whitfield v. Unnamed Employees of the Local Social Security Administration Office
Filing
4
ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/21/2016. First 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
12
13
14
15
16
STEVEN WHITFIELD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNNAMED EMPLOYEES OF THE LOCAL )
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant.
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01513 - AWI - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2)
ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
17
Steven Whitfield seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis for a claim of negligence under
18
the Federal Tort Claim Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401, 2672, and 2675 again an unidentified employee of
19
the Social Security Administration. (Doc. 1) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
20
in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, because the facts alleged are insufficient to support a
21
claim for negligence, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
22
I.
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis
23
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees when an
24
individual “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
has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and finds he 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 a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and
2
3
must dismiss the case if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or
4
appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks
5
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). A claim
6
is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether
7
or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504
8
U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
9
III.
10
Pleading Standards
General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
11
pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short
12
and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the
13
relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
14
8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less
15
stringent standards” than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).
16
A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and
17
succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, a
18
plaintiff must identify the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
19
U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,
20
21
22
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.
23
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
24
Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d
25
266, 268 (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
2
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.’
1
2
3
Iqbal, 566 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; legal
5
conclusions in the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id.
The Court has a duty to dismiss a case at any time it determines an action fails to state a claim,
6
7
“notwithstanding any filing fee that may have been paid.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2). Accordingly, a court
8
“may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a
9
claim.” See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
10
Practice and Procedure, § 1357 at 593 (1963)). However, the Court may grant leave to amend to the
11
extent the plaintiff can cure the deficiencies found in the complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
12
1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
13
IV.
14
Factual Allegations and Background
Plaintiff asserts that he entered into a contract with Ginger Patterson to be an “appointed non-
15
attorney representative” for Ms. Patterson related to her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc.
16
1 at 2) In the claim for damages Plaintiff presented to the Social Security Administration, he reported
17
Ms. Patterson initially filed an application while residing in Daly City, after which she moved to
18
Bakersfield, where she met Plaintiff through mutual friends. (Id. at 5) Plaintiff asserts Ms. Patterson
19
“requested that [he] represent her before the SSA in connection with her claim.” (Id.) According to
20
Plaintiff, he then “prepared the required SSA 1696 Form and Contractual Fee Agreement,” which Ms.
21
Patterson signed, and submitted them to the SSA Office. (Id.)
22
Plaintiff asserts an SSA employee “assured Plaintiff that the aforesaid documents would be
23
properly transmitted by them to the appropriate (SSA) in Daly City, California.” (Doc. 1 at 3)
24
However, he asserts the SSA “negligently mishandle[ed]” the documents he submitted in connection
25
with Ms. Patterson’s claim. (Id. at 2) Plaintiff contends the SSA employee “owed plaintiff a duty
26
existing regulations, policies, [and] laws established by the (SSA).” (Id.)
27
28
After Ms. Patterson’s Title II application was granted, Plaintiff contends the “representation
fees … were wrongly paid to an attorney who was unauthorized to get it.” (Doc. 1 at 5) He alleges the
3
1
attorney “had not properly executed (SSA) mandatory forms establishing representation” for Ms.
2
Patterson. (Id. at 3) As a result, Plaintiff contends he suffered a loss of a $900 fee award in connection
3
with Ms. Patterson’s Title II claim. (Id.)
4
V.
Although Plaintiff in this case has sued an individual, defendant is an employee of the Social
5
6
Federal Tort Claims Act
Security Administration. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
[t]he remedy against the United States provided by [28 U.S.C. §§] 1346(b) and 2672
… for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from
the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while
acting within the scope of his office or employment is exclusive of any other civil
action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against
the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of
such employee.
7
8
9
10
11
28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). The FTCA governs “circumstances where the United States, if a private
12
person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
13
omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). In other words, a tort action against a federal employee
14
acting within the scope of his employment must be brought against the United States if a private person
15
could be held liable for the same type of conduct under California law.
As an agent of the Social Security Administration, the defendant falls within the definition of an
16
17
“employee of the government.”1 As a result, the employee is not a proper defendant, and instead the
18
United States should be identified as the defendant.
19
VI.
20
Discussion and Analysis
“An action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty,
21
that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate or legal cause of injuries
22
suffered by the plaintiff.” Regents of the Univ. of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.,
23
240 Cal. App. 4th 1296, 1310 (2015), reh’g denied (Oct. 26, 2015) quoting Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza
24
Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666, 673 (1993) [disapproved on another ground in Reid v. Google, Inc.,
25
50 Cal.4th 512, 527, fn. 5 (2010)].
26
27
28
1
“Employee of the government” is defined, in relevant part, as “officers or employees of any federal agency . . .
and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the
United States, whether with or without compensation . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
4
As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to identify a specific duty owed to him by an employee of
1
2
the Social Security Administration. In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a
3
conclusion that he was qualified as a non-attorney representative and entitled to payment by the Social
4
Security Administration. To be qualified, the prospective representative must have completed a
5
bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution or the Commissioner has determined he/she has
6
equivalent qualifications due to training and experience, he/she has passed an examination
7
administered by the Commissioner to verify the knowledge of the relevant provisions of social
8
security law, he/she has professional liability insurance or its equivalent, has undergone a criminal
9
background check to verify the his/her fitness to act as a representative and engages in ongoing
10
education classes. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(e)(2); Social Security Disability Applicants’ Access to
11
Professional Representation Act of 2010 (PRA), Public Law No. 111-142. Further, it is not clear
12
whether Ms. Patterson also hired an attorney to represent her with the application, or whether she filed
13
request with the SSA to replace Plaintiff with an attorney. Consequently, Plaintiff fails to allege facts
14
supporting the conclusion that his damages were caused by an action of the SSA.
15
VII.
16
Conclusion and Order
Given the lack of factual allegations, the Court is unable to find Plaintiff states a cognizable
17
claim for negligence. However, it is not clear whether the factual deficiencies may be cured by
18
amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at
19
1128 (dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim is proper only
20
where it is obvious that an opportunity to amend would be futile).
21
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Forsyth v.
22
Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
23
In addition, the amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or
24
superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original
25
pleading no longer serves any function in the case. The amended complaint must bear the docket
26
number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Finally, Plaintiff is
27
warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an
28
amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing London v.
5
1
Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). If Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting his
2
claim for negligence in an amended complaint, the Court will find he is unable to do so.
3
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
4
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;
5
2.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and
6
3.
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file a First
Amended Complaint.
7
8
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order to file an amended complaint, the action may be
9
dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 21, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?