Carter v. Social Security Administration
Filing
2
ORDER that 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice with leave to amend. Amended Complaint deadline: 3/13/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/12/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
CAROL D. CARTER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:14-cv-1825-MMD-GWF
ORDER
Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (#1) and Screening of
Complaint (#1-1)
13
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(#1), filed on October 31, 2014.
16
BACKGROUND
17
The Plaintiff, Carol D. Carter, brings suit for review of her social security case. She claims
18
that the denial of benefits to her causes her hardship due to her health problems. She has doctor
19
appointments back to back every week, and she ends up in the emergency room every time. She
20
has knee and back problems that result in major pain that give her difficulty standing or sitting. It
21
is very difficult for her to get or maintain a job. She asks that the Judge looks at her case again.
22
23
DISCUSSION
I.
24
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit to her application and
25
complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Reviewing Carter’s financial affidavit pursuant to
26
28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pre-pay the filing fee. As a result,
27
Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is granted.
28
...
1
II.
Screening the Complaint
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a
2
3
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority to
4
dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which
5
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff who is
6
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be
7
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted “if it appears beyond a
8
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to
9
relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint may be dismissed
10
as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke
11
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). Moreover, “a finding of factual frivolousness is
12
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
13
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v.
14
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the
15
plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies,
16
unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by
17
amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
18
III.
19
Instant Complaint
The Plaintiff asks this Court to review her social security application. A disagreement with
20
the Social Security Administration’s final decision may be grounds for this Court to review the
21
case. Federal courts only have jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of the SSA’s final decisions.
22
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises v. Harris, 633 F.2d 123, 137
23
(9th Cir. 1980). It is unclear that Plaintiff has exhausted all her administrative remedies with the
24
SSA. The Plaintiff’s brief complaint does not detail the evidence that was presented before the
25
agency, who made the decision to deny the Plaintiff’s benefits, or if that decision was final. The
26
Plaintiff does not give the Court the necessary information to determine if it has jurisdiction over
27
this matter. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this complaint with leave to amend, to provide the
28
Plaintiff another opportunity to give the Court the necessary information.
2
1
If Plaintiff elects to proceed in this action by filing an amended complaint, she is informed
2
that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make her amended complaint complete.
3
Local Rule 15–1 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
4
prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original
5
complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended
6
complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an
7
amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant
8
must be sufficiently alleged. Accordingly,
9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is
10
granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the full filing fee of four hundred dollars
11
($400.00).
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to
13
conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of
14
security therefor. This Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the
15
issuance of subpoenas at government expense.
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice
17
with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have until March 13, 2015 to file an amended complaint
18
correcting the noted deficiencies.
19
DATED this 12th day of February, 2015.
20
21
22
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?