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