James v. Berryhill

Filing 2

SCREENING ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1 Plaintiff Patricia L. James' Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall FILE the Complaint, but SHALL NOT issue summons. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Ms. James shall have until 6/22/2018, to file an amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PATRICIA L. JAMES,

Case No. 2:18-00885-APG-PAL

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

SCREENING ORDER

v.

(IFP App – ECF No. 1)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiff Patricia L. James has submitted an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

14

(ECF No. 1) along with a proposed Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The Application and Complaint

15

are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local

16

Rules of Practice.

17

I.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

18

Ms. James’s Application includes the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability

19

to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

20

pauperis (“IFP”) will be granted. The court will now review the Complaint.

21

II.

SCREENING THE COMPLAINT

22

A. Legal Standards

23

After granting a request to proceed IFP, federal courts must screen a complaint and any

24

amended complaints before allowing a case to move forward, issuing summonses, and requiring a

25

responsive pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Courts are

26

required to dismiss an IFP action if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

27

granted, is legally “frivolous or malicious,” or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from

28

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed
1

1

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915 is the same as the standard under

2

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 for failure to state a claim. Watison v.

3

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). A screening under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a

4

ruling on a question of law. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).

5

A properly pled complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

6

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must

7

allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

8

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff alleges factual

9

content that allows the court to make a reasonable inference that a defendant is liable for the claim

10

alleged. Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 678 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Ashcroft v.

11

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). This plausibility standard is not a “ ‘probability requirement,’

12

but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556

13

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although Rule 8(a) does not require detailed

14

factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

15

Here, Ms. James’s Complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration

16

(“SSA”) denying her disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles

17

II and XVI of the Social Security Act. See Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) at ¶ 3. To state a valid benefits

18

claim, a complaint must give a defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

19

upon which it rests. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that a complaint

20

must contain sufficient factual allegations “to enable the opposing party to defend itself

21

effectively”). A plaintiff must present sufficient detail for the court to understand the disputed

22

issues so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint. See 4 Soc. Sec. Law & Prac. § 56:4 (2016);

23

2 Soc. Sec. Disab. Claims Prac. & Proc. §§ 19:92–93 (2nd ed. 2015). To do so, a complaint should

24

state when and how a plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies with the SSA and the nature

25

of her disability, including the date she claims she became disabled. The complaint should also

26

contain a short and concise statement identifying why the SSA’s decision was wrong and showing

27

that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Sabbia v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 669 F. Supp. 2d 914,

28

1

All references to a “Rule” or the “Rules in this Order refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

1

918 (N.D. Ill. 2009), aff’d by 433 F. App’x 462 (7th Cir. 2011).

2

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

3

Before a plaintiff can sue the SSA in federal court, she must exhaust her administrative

4

remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989)

5

(“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been

6

party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the

7

claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies an application for disability benefits, a claimant can request

8

reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied upon reconsideration, a claimant may request

9

a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant

10

may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council declines to

11

review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then request review by the United States District Court.

12

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. A civil action for judicial review must be commenced within

13

60 days after receipt of the Appeals Council’s notice of a final decision. Id. See also 20 C.F.R.

14

§ 405.501. The SSA assumes that the notice of final decision will be received within five days of

15

the date on the notice unless shown otherwise; thus, an action commenced within 65 days is

16

presumed timely. The civil action must be filed in the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.

17

42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).

18

In this case, Ms. James alleges that on March 13, 2018, the Appeals Council denied the

19

request for review and the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See

20

Compl. ¶ 8. Thus, it appears she has exhausted her administrative remedies. Ms. James timely

21

commenced this action as the Complaint was filed on May 16, 2018, and the Complaint indicates

22

that she resides within the District of Nevada. See Compl. ¶ 1. Accordingly, she has satisfied

23

these prerequisites for judicial review.

24

C. Grounds for Ms. James’s Appeal

25

The Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision benefits and asks the

26

court to reverse that decision, or alternatively, to remand this matter for a new hearing. A district

27

court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted his administrative

28

remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the Commissioner’s final
3

1

decision is limited to determining whether: (1) there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole

2

to support the Commissioner’s findings; and (2) the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan

3

v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).

4

In her Complaint, Ms. James alleges that the ALJ found her to have the severe impairments

5

of cervicalgia, degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, headaches, and mild

6

right carpal tunnel syndrome. Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) ¶ 9(a). Despite her severe impairments, the

7

ALJ found that James had the residual functional capacity “to perform light work as defined in 20

8

CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) consisting of lifting or carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally

9

and 10 pounds frequently; standing and/or walking for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; and

10

sitting for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday,” subject to certain limitations. Id. ¶ 9(b). The ALJ

11

also found that James could perform her past relevant work. Id. ¶ 9(c).

12

Ms. James contends that the ALJ’s decision “lacks the support of substantial evidence.”

13

Id. ¶ 9(d). The ALJ purportedly “failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence and subjective

14

complaints in making this finding.” Id.

15

The Complaint lacks sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give the Defendant fair

16

notice of James’s disagreement with the SSA’s final determination. Ms. James has not alleged

17

when her disability commenced, instead alleging only she “is, and at all times relevant to this

18

action, disabled as that term is defined in the Social Security Act.” See Compl. ¶ 5. Additionally,

19

she merely alleges the ALJ’s decision to deny her benefits was wrong, but she fails to indicate why

20

the decision is wrong other than by reciting the general standards that govern the court’s review of

21

the SSA’s decision. Id. at ¶ 9(d). Rule 8’s pleading standard requires more than “labels and

22

conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint merely stating that the SSA’s decision was

23

wrong and failing to describe the underlying reasons why is insufficient to satisfy Rule 8’s pleading

24

requirement because the complaint does not provide “fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

25

and the grounds upon which it rests.” See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216 (a complaint must “enable the

26

opposing party to defend itself effectively”). Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim

27

upon which relief can be granted, and Ms. James will be given leave to amend.

28

///
4

1

Based on the foregoing,

2

IT IS ORDERED:

3

1. Plaintiff Patricia L. James’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is

4

GRANTED. She will not be required to pay the $400 filing fee.

5

2. Ms. James is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without prepaying any fees

6

or costs or giving security therefor. However, this Order granting IFP status does not

7

extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.

8

3. The Clerk of Court shall FILE the Complaint, but SHALL NOT issue summons.

9

4. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Ms. James shall have

10

until June 22, 2018, to file an amended complaint, if she believes she can correct the

11

noted deficiencies.

12
13
14

5. Failure to file an amended complaint on or before June 22, 2018, will result in a
recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2018.

15
16
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5