Holloway v. Berryhill

Filing 14

ORDER RE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 [re 13 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Ernest Holloway, 12 Order to Show Cause]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/18/2018. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ERNEST HOLLOWAY,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 18-02465 WHA

v.

15

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy
Commissioner for Operations, performing
duties and functions not reserved to the
Commissioner of Social Security,

16

Defendant.

14

ORDER RE SCREENING
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915

/

17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

In this social security benefits case, plaintiff alleges that his request for disability

20

benefits was wrongfully denied. He now fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

21
22
23

STATEMENT
In 2014, plaintiff Ernest Holloway filed for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI

24

of the Social Security Act and was ultimately denied benefits by the Acting Commissioner.

25

Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis and sought review of the Acting Commissioner’s decision

26

by Judge Nathanael Cousins, alleging in his complaint that defendant should have found him

27

disabled and awarded him disability benefits. Judge Cousins found plaintiff's complaint to be

28

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 19l5, meaning that the complaint lacked an arguable basis

1

“either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Judge Cousins

2

granted plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and his case was

3

reassigned to district court. His amended complaint made only skeletal allegations of error on

4

the part of the Acting Commissioner. In an effort to clarify plaintiff’s grievances, an order

5

requested that plaintiff provide the administrative record. Plaintiff’s counsel promptly provided

6

the record, which contained defendant’s decision regarding plaintiff’s disability claim (Dkt.

7

Nos. 6, 7, 10, 12, 13).

preliminary screening of plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any claims which (1) are frivolous or

10

malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief

11
For the Northern District of California

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis under Section 19l5, a court must conduct a

9

United States District Court

8

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e)(2)(B) (West 2018).

12

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it does not “state a

13

claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

14

(2007), even when the court takes “all allegations of material fact as true and construes them

15

in the light most favorable” to plaintiff, Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters

16

of U.S., 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). A court is not, however, obligated to credit “legal

17

conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements” as true in assessing whether a complaint is

18

plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

19

ALJs review requests for disability benefits in the name of the Acting Commissioner.

20

This review entails examination of the disability claim under a five-part framework mandated

21

by the Social Security Act (AR 5). The framework includes an inquiry into whether the

22

claimant has the ability to do any kind of work, considering the claimant’s age, education,

23

work experience, and the claimant’s ability to work on a sustained basis notwithstanding his

24

impairments (AR 6). If the ALJ finds the claimant able to undertake work, even within a

25

limited range of occupations, he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

26

ANALYSIS

27

If the claimant’s treating doctor asserts an uncontradicted conclusion about the

28

claimant’s disability status, a fact-finder cannot reject the doctor’s conclusion absent “clear and
2

1

convincing” reasons. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). If a treating

2

doctor’s conclusion is contradicted by another doctor, a fact-finder can only reject the treating

3

doctor’s conclusion by providing “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial

4

evidence in the record.” See id. at 830–31. The opinions of non-treating physicians can

5

constitute substantial evidence when their opinions are consistent with other evidence in the

6

record. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). Where the evidence is

7

susceptible to more than one rational conclusion, one of which supports the ALJ’s decision,

8

the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld. Ibid.

9

In light of the administrative record, plaintiff’s skeletal allegations of error are
unjustified. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the Commissioner improperly rejected his

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

treating doctors’ opinions regarding his disability and thereby erroneously found plaintiff to be

12

not disabled. Plaintiff provides no support for these allegations beyond factual and legal

13

conclusions. He does not even detail the nature or onset date of his disability in his complaint,

14

instead asserting only that he is disabled, which is itself a legal conclusion. An examination of

15

the record reveals that defendant’s explanation for finding plaintiff not disabled included

16

specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Though other

17

treating and examining sources asserted that plaintiff was disabled, the ALJ concluded from

18

plaintiff’s and a vocational expert’s testimony that plaintiff was able to pursue certain unskilled

19

light occupations, a category in which there are many potential jobs for plaintiff (AR 12–14).

20

The ALJ’s conclusion was supported by the opinions of two examining physicians, both of

21

whom asserted that plaintiff was still able to undertake certain work (AR 13). Plaintiff testified

22

that he cares for his daughter and maintains his home independently, all of which involves

23

physical exertion at a level inconsistent with plaintiff’s alleged disability (AR 11). Because the

24

ALJ’s evaluation of the medical evidence was based on specific and legitimate reasons

25

supported by substantial evidence in the record, plaintiff has not asserted a plausible claim for

26

relief from the denial of disability benefits.

27

Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony and failed to

28

obtain an expert medical opinion. Plaintiff does little more than recite legal conclusions to
3

1

support these claims. In any event, even if these allegations were true, the ALJ would still be

2

within his discretion to find plaintiff not disabled, as his weighing of the medical evidence

3

would still be based on specific and legitimate reasons supported by the record.

4
5

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

6

and accordingly does not meet the pre-screening standard of Section 19l5. Plaintiff’s complaint

7

is dismissed with leave to amend, but because the administrative record indicates that plaintiff’s

8

claims lack merit, plaintiff may not file any second amended complaint in forma pauperis.

9

If plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint, he must do so by AUGUST 9, 2018.
If he does, he must plead his best case.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: June 18, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4