(SS) Robles v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Issue Summons, Scheduling Order, and Consent or Request for Reassignment Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 5/13/2024. (Xiong, J.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELICA MARIA ROBLES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. Case No. 1:24-cv-00559-CDB (SS) ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER, AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS (Doc. 2) 16 17 Angelica Maria Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on May 9, 2024, 18 19 seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability 20 benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, 22 the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 23 forma pauperis appropriate. 24 I. 25 Proceeding in forma pauperis The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by 26 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person…possesses 27 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 28 Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and 1 finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied. 2 II. 3 Screening Requirement When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 4 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails 5 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous 7 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not 8 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 9 25, 32-33 (1992). 10 11 III. Pleading Standards A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 12 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief 13 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the 15 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 16 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8: 19 … 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. 20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 21 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 22 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further, 17 18 27 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2009). 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. Id. at 556. 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. Id. 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.” 28 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 23 24 25 26 2 1 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are 2 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. (Id.) The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint 3 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 4 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 IV. 6 Discussion and Analysis Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying 7 disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 8 which provides: 9 10 11 12 13 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. 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). 17 Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a request for review of the 18 decision on March 6, 2024, after which Plaintiff had 60 days, plus five days for delivery by mail, 19 to file a civil action. (Doc. 1 ⁋2). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff states that she 20 resides in Fresno, California, County of Fresno. Id. at ⁋4. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction 21 over this action. 22 23 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 V. Conclusion and Order 2 Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision 3 denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to 5 issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or Request 6 for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: May 13, 2024 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 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?