Jamma v. Berryhill
Filing
6
ORDER Directing U.S. Marshal Service re 5 Amended Complaint. It is Ordered that the Defendant is to reply to Plaintiffs FAC within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendant's counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original paper to be filed with t he Clerk, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of the document was served on the Defendant, or counsel for Defendant, and the date of that service. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/29/2017. (IFP Package Mailed)(mpl)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NUBIA ELENA JAMMA,
Case No.: 17cv1520-JLS (AGS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER DIRECTING U.S.
MARSHAL SERVICE
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
16
(ECF No. 5)
Defendant.
17
18
19
On August 16, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff Nubia Elena Jamma’s Motion to
20
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to
21
survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 4.)
22
Specifically, Plaintiff merely provided recitations of law without any factual allegations.
23
(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that purportedly
24
addresses these deficiencies. (ECF No. 5.)
25
Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
26
The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)
27
and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief
28
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.”
1
17cv1520-JLS (AGS)
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001)
2
(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v.
3
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
4
“not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
5
that fails to state a claim”).
6
As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
7
mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915
8
make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service
9
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Navarette
10
v. Pioneer Med. Ctr., No. 12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB), 2013 WL 139925, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
11
Jan. 9, 2013).
12
All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
13
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
14
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
15
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
16
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). “[D]etermining whether a complaint
17
states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its
18
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663–64 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
19
556).
20
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
21
veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.”
22
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court
23
must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light
24
most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see
25
also Andrews v. King, 393 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152
26
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the
27
language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).
28
///
2
17cv1520-JLS (AGS)
1
“While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.” Hoagland
2
v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012)
3
(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot accept legal conclusions set forth in a
4
complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts. Id. (citing Iqbal, 556
5
U.S. at 679).
6
In social security appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits “must
7
provide a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social
8
Security Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is
9
entitled to relief.” Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at
10
*2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim
11
for relief where the complaint merely alleged that the Commissioner’s decision to deny
12
benefits was wrong without explaining why, and instead simply recited the general
13
standards governing review of that decision).1 “The purpose of the complaint is to briefly
14
and plainly allege facts supporting the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision
15
was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (citing Brown v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-056-
16
JL, 2011 WL 3664429, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011)).
17
In the present case Plaintiff seeks review of her Social Security Act (“SSA”) benefits
18
denial. (See generally FAC.) Plaintiff alleges that there is no substantial evidence in the
19
record to support the SSA Commissioner’s decision, (id. ¶¶ 9(a)–(b)), and that the evidence
20
in the record supports only the finding that Plaintiff is and has been continuously disabled
21
as defined in the Social Security Act, (id. ¶ 9(c)). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was
22
found to have severe impairments of a depressive disorder and cognitive disorder, yet the
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Montoya court listed the requirements for social security appeal complaints: (1) Plaintiff must
establish that he has exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the
civil action commenced within 60 days after notice of final decision; (2) the complaint must list the judicial
district in which the Plaintiff resides; (3) the complaint must state how Plaintiff is disabled and when
Plaintiff became disabled; and (4) the complaint must contain a short and plain statement that identifies
why the Plaintiff disagrees with the Commissioner’s determination and show that the Plaintiff is entitled
to relief. 2016 WL 890922, at *2.
3
17cv1520-JLS (AGS)
1
ALJ found that she had the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work.
2
(Id. ¶¶ 9(d)–(f).) Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical
3
evidence and subjective complaints in making this finding. (Id. ¶ 9(f).) The Court finds that
4
the allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC are sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required
5
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Cf. Harris v. Colvin, No. SACV 14-0383-GW (RNB), 2014
6
WL 1095941, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (concluding that the plaintiff had failed to
7
state a claim for relief where the complaint did not specify why the ALJ’s findings were
8
not supported by substantial evidence or the reasons why the proper legal standards were
9
not applied); Montoya, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (dismissing for failure to state a claim under
10
screening duty and explaining that “Plaintiff fails to state the nature of his disability or
11
when it commenced, alleging only that ‘[Plaintiff] is, and at all times relevant to this action,
12
disabled as that term is defined in the Social Security Act.’ . . . . Moreover, Plaintiff alleges
13
merely that the Commissioner’s decision to deny her benefits was wrong without any
14
indication as to why it was wrong other than a recitation of the general standards that
15
govern this Court’s review of that decision” (first alteration in original)).
16
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to U.S. Marshal service on her behalf. 28 U.S.C.
17
§ 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties
18
in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by
19
a United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in
20
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua
21
sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any
22
subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v.
23
Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
24
CONCLUSION
25
Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:
26
1.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s FAC (ECF No.
27
5) upon Defendant and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285
28
for the named Defendant. In addition, the Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a
4
17cv1520-JLS (AGS)
1
certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of her Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the
2
summons so that he may serve the named Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,”
3
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete the Form 285 as completely and accurately as
4
possible, and to return it to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided
5
by the Clerk in the letter accompanying the IFP package.
6
2.
Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve a copy of the
7
Complaint and summons upon the named Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USM
8
Form 285. All costs of service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
9
§ 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
10
3.
Defendant is thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s FAC within the time
11
provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42
12
U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (noting that once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening
13
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus has made a preliminary
14
determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable
15
opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the defendant is required to respond).
16
4.
Plaintiff SHALL SERVE upon the Defendant or, if appearance has been
17
entered by counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other
18
document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original
19
paper to be filed with the Clerk, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct
20
copy of the document was served on the Defendant, or counsel for Defendant, and the date
21
of that service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the
22
Clerk, or which fails to include a Certificate of Service, may be disregarded.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2017
25
26
27
28
5
17cv1520-JLS (AGS)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?