(SS) Roman Blanco v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING #2 Motion to Proceed IFP ; ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ISSUE SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER STAYING CASE PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 615, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/30/2021. (Attachments: #1 USM SS Instructions) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROMAN BLANCO,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

15
16

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

Case No.: 1:21-cv-0524 JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(Doc. 2)
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER
ORDER STAYING CASE PURSUANT TO
GENERAL ORDER 615

17
Roman Blanco seeks to proceed in forma pauperis 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 a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2) For the following

21

reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents 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 is

6

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). The purpose of the

14

complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the grounds upon which the complaint

15

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

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). Vague

20

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

21

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 their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

IV.

Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability

5
6

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.

7
8
9
10
11
12

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

13

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

14

Plaintiff seeks to appeal the final administrative decision denying an application for benefits.

15

(Doc. 1 at 1-2) Plaintiff asserts the Appeals Council issued its notice denying a request for review of

16

the decision on February 4, 2021. (Id. at 1) Thus, any request for judicial review was to be filed no

17

later than April 12, 2021.1 Because Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint prior to that

18

date, the request for judicial review was timely under Section 405(g).

19

V.

20
21

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:

22

1.

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

23

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to Andrew Saul, Commissioner

24
25

of Social Security;
3.

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

26
1

27
28

The sixty-fifth day after the notice was Saturday, April 10, 2021. Thus, the statute of limitations was extended
to the following Monday. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(a)(1)(C) (“if the last day [of a statute of limitations period] is a Saturday,
Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday”).

3

1

Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent Form, and USM-

2

285 Forms;

3
4
5
6

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; and
5.

After service, the matter will remain STAYED pursuant to General Order 615, until the

administrative record is filed or further order of the Court lifting the stay.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 30, 2021

_ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4