Stinnett Gray v. Social Security
Filing
6
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 4 Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED with the caveat that the fees shall be paid if recovery is made. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 11/6/17, to file an Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff believes she can correct the noted deficiencies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BRENDA F. STINNETT-GRAY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:17-cv-02123-APG-NJK
ORDER
16
Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket
17
No. 4), and submitted a Complaint (Docket No. 1-1), and a supplemental exhibit to her complaint (Docket
18
No. 5).
19
I.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
20
Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and
21
costs or give security for them. Docket No. 4. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will
22
be granted pursuant to § 1915(a). The Court will now review Plaintiff’s Complaint.
23
II.
Screening the Complaint
24
Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. E.g., Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332
25
(9th Cir. 1968). When a party seeks permission to pursue a civil case in forma papueris, courts will screen
26
the complaint pursuant to federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In particular, the governing statute
27
provides that courts shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that, inter alia, it is frivolous or
28
malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See id. A central function of this
1
screening process is to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless
2
lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the cost of bringing suit.” Neitzke v.
3
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
4
In civil cases in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, courts require that the
5
plaintiff comply with the robust authority that complaints must provide sufficient notice of the basis of the
6
claims presented and state a claim for relief. See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
7
2012). Complaints are subject to the pleading standards set out in Rule 8. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
8
534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, the complaint
9
must set forth the grounds of the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief and may not rest on “labels and
10
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
11
662, 678 (2009). Courts must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint,
12
but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Id. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of
13
a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Moreover, where
14
the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should
15
be dismissed. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When a court dismisses a
16
complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as
17
to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be
18
cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). In cases such as this,
19
in which the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes her pleadings. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
20
F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010).
21
A complaint in a social security appeal is not exempt from the Section 1915(e) screening of in forma
22
pauperis cases generally. Hoagland v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (screening
23
is required “even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial
24
of social security disability benefits”); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
25
banc) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints”). Moreover, although a complaint in
26
a social security appeal may differ in some ways from other civil cases, it is also “not exempt from the
27
general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. With respect to social security
28
appeals specifically, the undersigned and several other judges in this District have outlined some of the
2
1
basic requirements for complaints to satisfy the Court’s screening. First, the plaintiff must establish that
2
he has exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was
3
commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the
4
judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff’s
5
disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain,
6
short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination
7
made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See, e.g., Graves
8
v. Colvin, 2015 WL 357121, *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (collecting cases).
9
It is the fourth element above on which social security plaintiffs most often stumble. “Every
10
plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.”
11
Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. A complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was
12
wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement. See, e.g., Cribbet v. Comm’r of
13
Social Security, 2012 WL 5308044, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (citing Brown v. Astrue, 2011 WL
14
3664429, *2 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011)). “Similarly, a social security complaint that merely parrots the
15
standards used in reversing or remanding a case is not sufficient to withstand a screening pursuant to
16
Section 1915(e).” Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *2 (citing Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678). Instead, “[a]
17
complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of
18
facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL
19
2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added); see also Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *3 (finding
20
complaint failed to state a claim when it alleged only that “the Commissioner’s decision to deny [the
21
plaintiff] benefits was wrong without any indication as to why it was wrong other than a recitation of the
22
general standards that govern this Court’s review of that decision”); Harris v. Colvin, 2014 WL 1095941,
23
*4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (finding complaint failed to state a claim when it did not “specify . . . the
24
respects in which [the plaintiff] contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence
25
and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied”); Gutierrez v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1087261, *2 (E.D.
26
Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) (finding complaint failed to comply with Rule 8’s notice requirements when it stated
27
only that benefits were denied, but had not “provided any substantive reasons” for appealing that decision
28
and had not “identified any errors in any decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge”). The
3
1
plaintiff must provide a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social
2
Security Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
3
While this showing need not be made in great detail, it must be presented in sufficient detail for the Court
4
to understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint
5
pursuant to § 1915(e). Cf. Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *4 (the complaint should avoid the advocacy
6
and argumentation of the opening brief to be submitted later, but must specifically set forth the facts
7
showing an entitlement to relief).
8
In this case, Plaintiff has filed a bare-bones complaint. Docket No. 1-1. When the Court denied
9
Plaintiff’s original application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court noted that, though it had not yet
10
screened her complaint, a quick look at Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that it is deficient. Docket No. 3 at
11
2 n. 1. In seeming response to the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed an exhibit to her complaint. Docket No.
12
5. Although not procedurally correct, the Court has screened Plaintiff’s exhibit, which consists of
13
documents from the Social Security Administration, including the decision of the Administrative Law
14
Judge (“ALJ”) and the notification to Plaintiff describing how she could appeal the decision, as well as
15
some medical records fo Plaintiff. Id. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint in accordance with
16
this order, the amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to any other pleading
17
or document.
18
Plaintiff has failed to allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies, that her appeal was
19
timely filed,1 the nature of her disability, or when she claims she became disabled. Further, the complaint
20
fails to contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of Plaintiff’s disagreement with
21
the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that she is entitled to relief.
22
Docket Nos. 1-1, 5. Accordingly, her complaint is clearly insufficient.
23
....
24
....
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff appears to submit that, since the ALJ found that she meets the insured status requirements
of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2017, her appeal is properly filed. See Docket No. 5 at 1,
12. Her insured status, however, is unrelated to either the timeliness of her appeal or the question of whether
she exhausted her administrative remedies.
4
1
III.
Conclusion
2
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
3
1.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED with the caveat that the fees
4
shall be paid if recovery is made. At this time, Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the
5
filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).
6
2.
Plaintiff is permitted to maintain the action to conclusion without the necessity of
7
prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. The Order
8
granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance of subpoenas
9
at government expense.
10
3.
The Clerk of Court shall file the Complaint.
11
4.
The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until November
12
6, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff believes she can correct the noted
13
deficiencies. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the
14
Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original Complaint or Plaintiff’s exhibit) in
15
order to make the Amended Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an
16
Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55,
17
57 (9th Cir. 1967). Local Rule 15-1 requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in
18
itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an Amended Complaint,
19
the original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended
20
Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant
21
must be sufficiently alleged.
22
recommended dismissal of this case, without prejudice.
23
Failure to comply with this Order will result in the
Dated: October 6, 2017.
24
25
26
________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
5
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?