Brown v. Colvin

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS re 1 , 3 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/28/13. "The court dismisses the Complaint and denies the IFP Application as moot. The court grants Brown leave to file an amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies noted in this order no later than December 2, 2013. Brown may also submit another IFP Application but must explain why she is unable to prepay her court fees despite her gross monthly income and ownership of the house in Washington. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by December 2, 2013, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee or submit an Amended IFP Application, will result in the aut omatic dismissal of this action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Sheri L. Brown shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on October 29, 2013. A copy of the court's Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees and Costs shall be included in the mailing to Ms. Brown.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SHERI L. BROWN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00557 SOM/KSC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING
AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On October 24, 2013, pro se plaintiff Sheri L. Brown
filed a Complaint and an In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Application.
Brown names Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security, as the sole Defendant.

The court has screened the

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915(A)(b)(1)
and determined that it fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.

Accordingly, the court dismisses the Complaint,

rendering the IFP Application moot.

The court grants Brown leave

to amend the Complaint.
To proceed in forma pauperis, Brown must demonstrate
that she is unable to prepay the court fees, and that her
Complaint sufficiently pleads claims.

See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying in forma pauperis
requirements to nonprisoners).
The court therefore screens a complaint to see whether

it is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
§ 1915(e)(2).

See 28 U.S.C.

To state a claim, a pleading must contain a “short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

While Rule 8 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not demand detailed
factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Ashcroft v.

“Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”

Id.

“[A] complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Id. (quoting Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

A claim is

plausible “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.

“Determining whether a

complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Id. at 1950.

In screening a pro se complaint, the court must
construe it liberally and must afford the plaintiff the benefit
of any doubt.

Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d

2

621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988).

The court must accept all allegations

of material fact as true and construe those facts in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.
447 (9th Cir. 2000).

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

Leave to amend should be granted if it

appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the
defects of his complaint.

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130

(9th Cir. 2000); see also Karim–Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623 (pro se
litigant must be given leave to amend complaint unless it is
absolutely clear that its deficiencies cannot be cured by
amendment); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)
(same).
Brown’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Brown’s only claim states, “The decision

denying the Plaintiff’s claim is not in accordance with the law
and is not supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant is

disabled and entitled to a period of disability."

Complaint ¶ V.

Brown provides the court with no factual basis from which it
could infer that Defendant is liable for any misconduct.

The

only fact that Brown alleges is that her benefits were denied;
however, the mere denial of Social Security benefits is
insufficient by itself to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Accordingly, Brown’s Complaint is dismissed and her IFP

Application is denied as moot.
Even if Brown’s Complaint were sufficient, the IFP

3

Application submitted to the court would be denied because she
fails to demonstrate that she is unable to pay the court fees.
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129.

Brown’s IFP Application indicates that

she owns a house in Washington with an alleged value of $250,000.
She also states that she receives a gross income of $2,227.80 per
month ($1,327.80 from the State of Washington and $900.00 from
rental income for her house), and has monthly expenses of
approximately $885.00.

Not only does Brown’s gross monthly

income significantly exceed her monthly expenses, her yearly
income of $26,733.60 also is greater than the Department of
Health and Human Services’ 2013 Federal Poverty Guideline of
$13,230 for a single individual residing in Hawaii.

See 2013 HHS

Poverty Guidelines, 76 Fed. Reg. 5182–01 (Jan. 24, 2013).

Thus,

because Brown fails to demonstrate poverty in light of her yearly
income and assets, she is not entitled to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The court dismisses the Complaint and denies the
IFP Application as moot.

The court grants Brown leave to file an

amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies noted in this order
no later than December 2, 2013.

Brown may also submit another

IFP Application but must explain why she is unable to prepay her
court fees despite her gross monthly income and ownership of the
house in Washington.

Failure to file an Amended Complaint by

December 2, 2013, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee or

4

submit an Amended IFP Application, will result in the automatic
dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, October 28, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Brown v. Colvin, Civil No. 13-00557 SOM-KSC; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING
AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

5