Hawes v. The U.S. Government's Social Security Administration et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/28/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
No. C 12-2949 WHA (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

TERRY HAWES,
11
12
v.
13
ANNELIDA RICHARDSON,
14
Defendant.
15
/
16

INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42

18
19

U.S.C. 1983 against Annelida Richardson, a District Manager of the Social Security

20

Administration. He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the

21

reasons discussed below, the petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for

22

relief.
ANALYSIS

23
24

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

25

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

26

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

28

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

1

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

2

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

3

(9th Cir. 1990).

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

7

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

8

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

9

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

10

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

11
For the Northern District of California

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

6

United States District Court

5

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

12

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

13

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

14

at 1974.

15

B.

16

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff claims that his social security benefits were improperly terminated when he was

17

arrested and taken into custody in Marin County Jail. Defendant is a manager in the Social

18

Security Administration. Plaintiff seeks 100 million dollars in damages.

19

Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable for two reasons. First, a dissatisfied Social Security

20

claimant may not may not seek damages from officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct

21

that leads to the wrongful denial of benefits. Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 420-29 (1988)

22

(improper denial of Social Security benefits cannot give rise to cause of action for money

23

damages). Secondly, while a social security claimant may seek review of the denial of benefits

24

in federal district court, including review of constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and

25

421(d), a convicted felon such as plaintiff currently incarcerated in prison is not entitled to

26

social security benefits, 42 U.S.C. 402(x). In any event, before bringing claims for the denial of

27

social security benefits under Sections 405(g) and 421(d), a plaintiff must exhaust

28

administrative remedies. Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 424 (exhaustion of remedies required up to
2

1

Appeals Council of Social Security Administration). Plaintiff does not indicate that he has

2

exhausted his administrative remedies.

3
4

Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for
relief.

5

CONCLUSION

6

For the reasons set out above, this case is DISMISSED.

7

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: June

28

, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.12\HAWES2949.DSM.wpd

23
24
25
26
27
28
3