De Romero v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
3
ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/13/2017. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MERCEDES MORALES DE ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-1508-JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
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
17
Mercedes Morales De Romero seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial
18
19
review of the administrative decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. Pending
20
before the Court are the complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following
21
reasons, the 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 financial status affidavit (Doc. 2), and finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are
27
satisfied. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request 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.
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability
8
9
Discussion and Analysis
benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides:
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.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
16
reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council denied a request for review of the decision denying
17
18
benefits on September 18, 2017. (Doc. 1 at 2) Plaintiff’s request for judicial review was due within
19
65 days of the date of Appeals Council’s notice, or no later than November 22, 2017. See 42 U.S.C.
20
§405(g) (noting a claimant is “presumed” to have received the notice of denial within “5 days after the
21
date of such notice”). Because Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 8, 2017, the request for
22
judicial review of the decision is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42
23
U.S.C. § 405(g).
24
V.
25
26
Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision denying
Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
27
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;
28
2.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Nancy
3
Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security;
1
2
3.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security Case
3
Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent
4
Form, and USM-285 Forms; and
5
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.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 13, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?