Jackson Jr v. Social Security
Filing
2
ORDER Plaintiff Thomas E. Jackson Jr.'s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 is GRANTED. Mr. Jackson is not required to pay the $400 filing fee.The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE the Complaint, but SHALL NOT issue summons.The Com plaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Mr. Jackson shall have 30 days from the date of this order, or until 6/16/16, to file an amended complaint, if he believes he can correct the noted deficiencies.The Clerk of the Court SHALL MAIL Mr. Jackson one blank form complaint for review of social security decision along with the instructions for completing the form. Failure to file an amended complaint by 6/16/16, may result in arecommendation to the district judge that this case be closed. (See Order for additional details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/16/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
THOMAS E. JACKSON JR.,
Case No. 2:16-00978-GMN-PAL
8
Plaintiff,
SCREENING ORDER
9
v.
(IFP App – Dkt. #1)
10
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
11
12
Plaintiff Thomas E. Jackson Jr. has submitted an Application to Proceed In Forma
13
Pauperis (Dkt. #1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 along with a Complaint. This Application and
14
Complaint are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 of
15
the Local Rules of Practice.
16
I.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
17
Mr. Jackson’s Application includes the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an
18
inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed
19
in forma pauperis will be granted. The Court will now review the Complaint.
20
II.
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
21
After granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a federal court must additionally
22
screen the complaint and any amended complaints filed prior to a responsive pleading. Lopez v.
23
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e) “applies to all in forma pauperis
24
complaints”). The simplified pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
25
Civil Procedure applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions. Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d
26
1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915’s screening requirement, a
27
properly pled complaint must therefore provide “a short and plain statement of the claim
28
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Bell Atlantic
-1-
1
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
2
allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the
3
elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). A
4
complaint “must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to
5
enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th
6
Cir. 2011). Allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal
7
pleading drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (joining five
8
other circuits finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is still required after Twombly
9
and Iqbal).
10
Federal courts are given the authority dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or
11
malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from
12
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
13
determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
14
§ 1915 is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a
15
claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is
16
essentially a ruling on a question of law. North Star Intern. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d
17
578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983). In considering whether a plaintiff states a valid claim, the court accepts
18
as true all material allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light most favorable to
19
the plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a court dismisses
20
a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e), a plaintiff is ordinarily given leave to amend with directions
21
as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies
22
could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The standard for
23
Here, Mr. Jackson’s Complaint suggests he is challenging a decision by the Social
24
Security Administration (“SSA”), but it is unclear whether he applied for disability insurance
25
benefits, supplemental security income, or both. To state a valid benefits claim, a complaint
26
must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it
27
rests. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. Although this showing need not be made in great detail, it must
28
-2-
1
be presented in sufficient detail for the court to understand the disputed issues so that it can
2
meaningfully screen the complaint. See 4 Soc. Sec. Law & Prac. § 56:4 (2015).
3
A.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
4
Before a plaintiff can sue the SSA in federal court, he must exhaust his administrative
5
remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989)
6
(“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been
7
party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the
8
claim”). What constitutes a “final decision” is defined through agency regulations rather than
9
statutory text.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(a); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975).
10
Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for disability benefits, he can request
11
reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied upon reconsideration, a claimant may
12
request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). If the ALJ denies the claim, a
13
claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council
14
declines to review the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s ruling will stand as the final decision and a
15
claimant may then request review by the United States District Court. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404,
16
416.
17
Although review by the Appeals Council is discretionary, the claimant must still petition
18
for review in order to receive a final decision. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000) (“If a
19
claimant fails to request review from the Appeals Council, there is no final decision and, as a
20
result, no judicial review in most cases.”); see also Salfi, 422 U.S. at 765–66 (a claimant who
21
fails to request the Appeals Council’s review has failed to exhaust administrative remedies). The
22
Ninth Circuit has also reiterated that the ALJ’s decision following the hearing does not become
23
the SSA’s final decision “until the claimant requests review by the appeals council, and the
24
appeals council either grants or denies review.” Bass, 872 F.2d at 833; see also Brewes v.
25
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012) (an ALJ’s decision is not final
26
“until the Appeals Council denies review or, if it accepts a case for review, issues its own
27
findings on the merits”).
28
-3-
1
In this case, Mr. Jackson has not alleged he exhausted his administrative remedies. For
2
example, he does not allege that he petitioned the Appeals Council for review or that the Appeals
3
Council denied his request for review. There is no indication that the ALJ’s decision became the
4
final decision of the Commissioner; therefore, it appears Mr. Jackson has failed to exhaust his
5
administrative remedies. Additionally, the Complaint does not allege that it was timely filed.
6
Once a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, he can obtain review of an SSA
7
decision denying benefits by filing a civil action within 60 days after notice of a final decision.
8
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. Here, the Complaint does not allege a date when the ALJ issued a
9
decision denying his claim for benefits. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether his
10
Complaint was timely filed. Based on these omissions and the additional deficiencies explained
11
below, the Court will dismiss Mr. Jackson’s Complaint with leave to amend by June 13, 2016.
12
An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought in a District
13
Court of the United States for the judicial district in which a plaintiff resides. Id. Here, the
14
Complaint indicates that Mr. Jackson resides within the District of Nevada. Accordingly, he has
15
satisfied this jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review.
16
B.
Grounds for Jackson’s Appeal and the Nature of the Disability
17
Mr. Jackson’s Complaint appears to seek judicial review of the SSA’s decision denying
18
benefits and may want the Court to reverse that decision, or alternatively, to remand this matter
19
for a new hearing. A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if a plaintiff
20
has exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial
21
review of the SSA’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is
22
substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner; and
23
(b) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169
24
F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).
25
In his Complaint, Mr. Jackson states that his lawyer was not prepared with all the facts
26
and evidence and he would like to go in front of a judge with all the facts and evidence of his
27
disability. However, Jackson has not stated the nature of his disability or alleged when it
28
commenced. Additionally, Mr. Jackson merely implies that the SSA’s decision to deny him
-4-
1
benefits was wrong, but he fails to indicate why the decision is wrong. Rule 8’s pleading
2
standard requires more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” and
3
more than “labels and conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint merely stating that the
4
SSA’s decision was wrong and failing to describe plaintiff’s disability is insufficient to satisfy
5
Rule 8’s pleading requirement because the complaint does not provide “fair notice of what the
6
plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Cf. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216 (addressing
7
post-Iqbal pleading standards and holding that a complaint “must contain sufficient allegations
8
of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself
9
effectively”). Accordingly, Mr. Jackson’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
10
be granted, and the Court therefore dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend by June 13,
11
2016. The Clerk of the Court will be instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank form complaint for
12
review of social security decision.1
13
Based on the foregoing,
14
IT IS ORDERED:
15
1. Plaintiff Thomas E. Jackson Jr.’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt.
#1) is GRANTED. Mr. Jackson is not required to pay the $400 filing fee.
16
17
2. Mr. Jackson is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of
18
prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This
19
Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance
20
and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
21
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE the Complaint, but SHALL NOT issue summons.
22
4. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Mr. Jackson shall have
23
30 days from the date of this order, or until June 16, 2016, to file an amended
24
complaint, if he believes he can correct the noted deficiencies.
25
5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL MAIL Mr. Jackson one blank form complaint for
26
review of social security decision along with the instructions for completing the form.
27
28
1
The Complaint for Review of Social Security Decision, Pro Se Form 13, is also available for download
on the United States Courts’ website at http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms/complaint-reviewsocial-security-decision.
-5-
1
6. Mr. Jackson shall clearly title the amended complaint as such by placing the words
2
“FIRST AMENDED” immediately above “Complaint for Review of a Social Security
3
Disability or Supplemental Security Income Decision” in the caption on the first
4
page, and he shall include 2:16-cv-00978-GMN-PAL in the space for “Case No.”
5
7. Failure to file an amended complaint by June 16, 2016, may result in a
6
7
recommendation to the district judge that this case be closed.
Dated this 16th day of May, 2016.
8
9
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
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?