Genier v. Berryhill

Filing 2

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 4/24/18, to file an Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff believes the noted deficiencies can be corrected. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SALLY GENIER, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) v. ) ) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant(s). ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:18-cv-00628-JAD-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 1) Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket 16 17 No. 1), and submitted a complaint (Docket No. 1-2). 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 19 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or 20 give security for them. Docket No. 1. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be 21 granted pursuant to § 1915(a). The Court will now review Plaintiff’s complaint. 22 II. Screening the Complaint 23 Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. E.g., Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 24 (9th Cir. 1968). When a party seeks permission to pursue a civil case in forma papueris, courts will screen 25 the complaint pursuant to federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In particular, the governing statute 26 provides that courts shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that, inter alia, it is frivolous or 27 malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See id. A central function of this 28 screening process is to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless 1 lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the cost of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. 2 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 3 In civil cases in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, courts require that the 4 plaintiff comply with the robust authority that complaints must provide sufficient notice of the basis of the 5 claims presented and state a claim for relief. See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 6 2012). Complaints are subject to the pleading standards set out in Rule 8. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 7 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, the complaint 8 must set forth the grounds of the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief and may not rest on “labels and 9 conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 10 662, 678 (2009). Courts must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, 11 but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Id. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of 12 a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Moreover, where 13 the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should 14 be dismissed. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When a court dismisses a 15 complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as 16 to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be 17 cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).1 18 A complaint in a social security appeal is not exempt from the Section 1915(e) screening of in forma 19 pauperis cases generally. Hoagland v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (screening 20 is required “even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial 21 of social security disability benefits”); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 22 banc) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints”). Moreover, although a complaint in 23 a social security appeal may differ in some ways from other civil cases, it is also “not exempt from the 24 general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. With respect to social security 25 appeals specifically, the undersigned and several other judges in this District have outlined some of the 26 27 28 1 In cases in which the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes her pleadings. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). Plaintiff is represented by an attorney in this case. 2 1 basic requirements for complaints to satisfy the Court’s screening. First, the plaintiff must establish that 2 she has exhausted her 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’s complaint indicates in conclusory fashion that the Commissioner erred in 9 finding that she is not disabled. See Docket No. 1-2 at ¶ 8. As outlined above, such a bald assertion fails, 10 and the complaint is subject to dismissal. 11 III. Conclusion 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED with the caveat that the fees 14 shall be paid if recovery is made. At this time, Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the 15 filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00). 16 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain the action to conclusion without the necessity of 17 prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. The Order 18 granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance of subpoenas 19 at government expense. 20 3. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until April 24, 21 2018, to file an Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff believes the noted deficiencies can be 22 corrected. 23 24 25 Dated: April 10, 2018 ________________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 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?