(SS) Prink v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING #2 Application 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 7/25/2024. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSICA LYNN PRINK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15
Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00850-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
Jessica Lynn Prink (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on July 24, 2024, seeking

18
19

review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits.

20

(Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in forma

21

pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Court

22

finds issuance of the new case documents and Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

23

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

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).
On December 14, 2023, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision denying

17
18

Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. (Doc. 1 at ⁋ 7). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a request for review to the

19

Appeals Council. Id. at ⁋ 8. On June 12, 2024, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request, at

20

which time the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Id. On July 24,

21

2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court seeking judicial review of the

22

Commissioner’s final decision. Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff states that he

23

resides in Tulare County, California. Id. at ⁋ 1. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this

24

action.

25

V.

Conclusion and Order

26

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision

27

denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

28

application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
3

1

issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or Request

2

for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

July 25, 2024

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4