Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Beatrice Malone, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28:1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court GRANTS the pltf to/including 7/30/12 to f ile an amended complaint along with either the filing fee or Motion to Proceed without prepayment of fees or costs. Failure to do so will result in the case being closed without further notice to the plaintiff. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/29/12. (jcp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BEATRICE MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 1:12-CV-213-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Beatrice Malone, a Plaintiff proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] against
the Commissioner of Social Security, and has also filed an Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees of Costs [ECF No. 2], seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
DISCUSSION
Ordinarily, a plaintiff must pay a statutory filing fee of $350 to bring an action in federal
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal statute governing proceedings in forma
pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, provides indigent litigants an opportunity for meaningful access to
the federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that access. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). To authorize a litigant to proceed in forma
pauperis, a court must make two determinations: (1) whether the litigant is unable to pay the
costs of commencing the action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and (2) whether the action is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Under the first inquiry, an indigent party may commence an action in federal court,
without prepayment of costs and fees, upon submission of an affidavit asserting an inability “to
pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Plaintiff’s Application
contains detailed information regarding her financial condition, but the Court will not address the
issue of the Plaintiff’s ability to pay because the second inquiry will require the Court to deny
her Application and dismiss her Complaint without prejudice.
In assessing whether a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis, a court must look to the
sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether it can be construed as stating a claim for which
relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). District courts have the authority under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the complaint on the defendants, and
must dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rowe v.
Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). Courts apply the same standard under § 1915(e)(2)(B)
as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DeWalt
v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 611–12 (7th Cir. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the court accepts the well-pleaded facts in
the complaint as true, but legal conclusions and conclusory allegations merely reciting the
elements of the claim are not entitled to this presumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). After excising the allegations not entitled to the presumption, the court should
determine whether the remaining factual allegations, assuming their veracity, “plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That
2
is, the complaint must contain “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” an
entitlement to relief. Id. at 557.
The Complaint here is inadequate because it does not contain information that plausibly
gives rise to an entitlement to relief, such as the date when her administrative remedies were
exhausted, and the factual grounds upon which her claim to relief rests. The Complaint provides
the Plaintiff’s social security number, but leaves blank the space for the date when the Appeals
Council denied her application for benefits. The Plaintiff and also leaves blank the portion of the
Complaint that would have provided notice to the Defendant of the factual basis for the legal
conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision to deny the Plaintiff’s application was erroneous
and was not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
Even presuming all well-pleaded allegations to be true and viewing them in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff, and accepting as true all reasonable inferences to be drawn from
the allegations, the Plaintiff’s factual allegations are not enough to raise the Plaintiff’s right to
relief above the speculative level. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request to proceed without
prepayment of fees will be denied, and the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This dismissal will be without prejudice because the
Plaintiff may be able to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court GRANTS the
3
Plaintiff up to and including July 30, to file an amended complaint, accompanied by either the
statutory filing fee or another Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs. If
the Plaintiff fails to amend her Complaint within the time allowed, the Clerk will be directed to
close this case without further notice to the Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED on June 29, 2012.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?