(SS) Beltran v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to Issue Summons, Scheduling Order, and Consent or Request for Reassignment Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 1/3/2025. (Deputy Clerk JPX)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAVIER BELTRAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15
Defendant.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00003-CDB (SS)
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER,
AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR
REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 2)

16
17
Plaintiff Javier Beltran (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on

18
19

January 2, 2025, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

20

denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an

21

application to proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). For

22

the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and Plaintiff’s

23

application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.

24

I.

Proceeding in forma pauperis

25

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.

Screening Requirement

3

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

III.

11

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

16

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

17

Following the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability

18

benefits, the Appeals Council gave Plaintiff 60 days from November 18, 2024, plus an additional

19

five (5) days for mail delivery, to file a civil action. (Doc. 1 at 1-2, ? 2). On January 2, 2025,

20

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final

21

decision. See id. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff claims residency in Visalia,

22

California. (Id. at 2, ? 4). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action.

23
24

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

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:

January 3, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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