Paul v. United States of America et al

Filing 11

ORDER Screening Second Amended Complaint; Order Requiring Issuance of New Summons; and Order Directing U.S. Marshals Service. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/23/2014. (IFP packet prepared) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIE PAUL,

12
13

CASE NO. 13cv3128-LAB (JMA)
Plaintiff,

ORDER SCREENING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT;

vs.

ORDER REQUIRING ISSUANCE
OF NEW SUMMONS; AND

14
15
16

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING U.S.
MARSHALS SERVICE

Defendant.

17

Plaintiff Marie Paul, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed her

18

second amended complaint (“SAC”). The Court is required to screen the complaint of a

19

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, and to dismiss it to the extent it is frivolous or

20

malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. See

21

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

22

Because she is proceeding pro se, the Court construes Paul's pleadings liberally, see Zichko

23

v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001), although she is still required to plead enough

24

facts to provide notice of what she thinks the Defendants did wrong. See Brazil v. U.S. Dep't

25

of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).

26

The SAC names the United States as a Defendant, but as with the previously

27

screened and dismissed complaints, doesn’t bring any valid claims against the United

28

States. Instead, it appears that Paul’s claims are administrative in nature, and may implicate
-1-

13cv3128

1

due process with regard to the Social Security Administration’s handling of her dispute. The

2

United States is therefore DISMISSED as a Defendant, and the SAC is deemed amended

3

to reflect this.

4

Paul alleges that, as a child living in the United States, she was assigned a social

5

security number. She has used this same number her entire adult life, including for

6

employment purposes from 1970 through 2007. The SAC attaches documentation of a

7

lengthy dispute with the SSA, in which she was assisted by a lawyer. She attaches a letter

8

from the SSA telling her to cease using that social security number, but not explaining the

9

reason.1 This is followed by correspondence from her attorney vainly requesting an

10

explanation of the basis for that decision. The SSA’s records apparently showed no earnings

11

associated with the social security number in question, (see SAC at 12 (SSA report)),

12

suggesting that no one at all was using it. But her attorney’s letters point to IRS records

13

showing that earnings from her previous jobs were associated with the social security

14

number she claims. The documentation shows that Paul and her attorney were both

15

concerned that the SSA’s error would likely result in her not receiving the social security

16

benefits she was entitled to, although her immediate concern in this action is which social

17

security number she should be using.

18

It may be that all this is explained by a simple clerical or administrative error. For

19

example, Paul’s IRS records use her married name, Marie Karmazin, but in correspondence

20

the SSA refers to her solely as Marie Paul. It may be that the SSA thinks the two are, or

21

might be, two different people, and believes it is protecting the other person by not revealing

22

her identity or allowing Marie Paul to use her social security number. It may also be that

23

there is more to the underlying dispute than the exhibits show. But for screening purposes,

24

the Court accepts the SAC’s allegations as true, and will assume the exhibits represent all

25

relevant communications between the SSA on the one hand and Paul and her attorney on

26

the other.

27
28

1

The letter itself says Paul had already been instructed to stop using the number. But
the SAC alleges this was the first notice Paul got.
-2-

13cv3128

1

Paul may be able to challenge the SSA’s decision under the Administrative

2

Procedures Act, as arbitrary and capricious or as otherwise unlawful; or to bring an appeal

3

under the Social Security Act. Also, if the SSA is arbitrarily refusing to correct a known error,

4

or even going so far as to prevent Paul and her attorney from gaining the information they

5

would need to bring an appropriate appeal, that arbitrary action may be a due process

6

violation. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (“The touchstone of due process

7

is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government . . . .”)

8

Accordingly, the Court finds that the SAC, as deemed amended, survives screening.

9

The Clerk is directed to generate a new electronic summons. The Court GRANTS Paul’s

10

request for U.S. Marshal’s service (Docket no. 8), and ORDERS the U.S. Marshals Service

11

to serve a copy of the Complaint, Summons, and this Order on Defendants as directed by

12

Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United

13

States.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 23, 2014

17
18

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

13cv3128