Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 8

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6 ) shall proceed against Defendant.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6 ).IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that the Clerk of the Court shall serve the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration by sending a copy of the Summons and Amended Complaint by certified mail to: (1) Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX, Social Security Adminis tration, 160 Spear Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105, and (2) the Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20530.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue Su mmons to the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada, and deliver the Summons and Amended Complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have sixty (60) court days from the date of service to file hi s answer or responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in this case.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendant. The Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge, magistrat e judge, or the Clerk of the Court which fails to include a certificate of service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 10/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - summons and amended complaint sent by certified mail to SSA and US AG; by email to USM - HAM)

Download PDF
Case 2:20-cv-01858-EJY Document 8 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 ALICIA CHAPMAN, 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. 2:20-cv-01858-EJY Plaintiff, ORDER v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Alicia Chapman’s Amended Complaint. ECF No. 6. 11 On October 7, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis 12 (ECF No. 1), and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) without prejudice with leave to 13 amend. ECF No. 5. 14 As stated in the prior Order, a plaintiff must satisfy the following procedural requirements in 15 order to file a complaint in a Social Security appeal before a federal district court: (1) the plaintiff 16 must establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 17 and that the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision; (2) the 18 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides; (3) the complaint must 19 state the nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled; and, 20 (4) the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the 21 plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and 22 show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Montoya v. Colvin, Case No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 23 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (internal citations omitted). 24 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint represents that she has exhausted her administrative 25 remedies and timely commenced this action after the Social Security Administration’s Appeal 26 Council denied her request for review. ECF No. 6 ¶ 4-5. The Amended Complaint further indicates 27 the judicial district within which Plaintiff resides. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff also alleges that she has been 28 disabled since August 1, 2015. Id. ¶ 7. Finally, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contends the ALJ 1 Case 2:20-cv-01858-EJY Document 8 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2 1 committed reversible error by relying on the vocational expert testimony without first reconciling 2 the “frequent” reaching Plaintiff’s past relevant work requires with the “occasional” reaching the 3 ALJ opined Plaintiff could perform. Id. ¶ 8-10. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint shall therefore 4 proceed against Defendant. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) shall proceed 7 8 9 against Defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve the Commissioner of 11 the Social Security Administration by sending a copy of the Summons and Amended Complaint by 12 certified mail to: (1) Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX, Social Security 13 Administration, 160 Spear Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105, and (2) the Attorney General 14 of the United States, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20530. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue Summons to the United 16 States Attorney for the District of Nevada, and deliver the Summons and Amended Complaint to the 17 U.S. Marshal for service. 18 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have sixty (60) court days from the date of service to file his answer or responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in this case. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant a copy 21 of every pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff 22 shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and 23 correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendant. The Court may disregard any paper received 24 by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk of the Court which fails to include a certificate of 25 service. 26 Dated this 13th day of October, 2020. 27 28 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?