The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 PATRICIA ANN JENKINS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01492-JLT
)
12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
) TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
13 v. ) (Doc. 2)
)
14 ANDREW SAUL, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
Commissioner of Social Security, ) SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE
15 ) DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER
Defendant. )
16 ) ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF THE
) COMPLAINT
17
18 Patricia Jenkins seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review of the
19 administrative decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. Pending before the Court
20 are the complaint and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2) For the following reasons,
21 the Court finds service of the complaint is appropriate.
22 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis
23 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a
24 person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and]
25 that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court
26 reviewed the financial status affidavit (Doc. 2), and finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are
27 satisfied. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
28 ///
1 II. Screening Requirement
2 When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
3 complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or
4 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant
5 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim
6 is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or
7 not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
8 25, 32-33 (1992).
9 III. Pleading Standards
10 General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
11 pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the
12 claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may
13 include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
14 A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and
15 succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The
16 purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds
17 upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The
18 Supreme Court noted,
19 Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
20 labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further
21 factual enhancement.
22 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague
23 and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
24 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
25 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when
26 the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The
27 plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint
28
1 pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of
the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’
2
3 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should
4 assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal
5 conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a
6 complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith,
7 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
8 IV. Discussion and Analysis
9 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability
10 benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides:
11 Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to
which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of
12 such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of
such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. Such action
13 shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in
which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business . . . The court shall
14 have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,
15 with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
16 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
17 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
18 Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council denied a request for review of the decision denying
19 benefits on August 17, 2019, at which time the decision of the administrative law judge became the
20 final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at 2) Plaintiff’s request for judicial review was due within
21 65 days of the date of Appeals Council’s notice, or no later than October 20, 2019. See 42 U.S.C.
22 §405(g) (noting a claimant is “presumed” to have received the notice of denial within “5 days after the
23 date of such notice”). Due the fact that October 20 fell on a Sunday, the statute of limitations was
24 extended one day to October 21, 2019. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(a)(1)(C) (“if the last day [of a statute of
25 limitations period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of
26 the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”). Because Plaintiff initiated this action
27 October 21, 2019, her request for judicial review of the decision is timely.
28 ///
1 V. Conclusion and Order
2 Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision denying
3 Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
4 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;
5 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant Andrew Saul,
6 Commissioner of Social Security;
7 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security Case
8 Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent
9 Form, and USM-285 Forms; and
10 4. The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the complaint, summons, and this
11 order upon the defendant as directed by Plaintiff in the USM Forms.
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 Dated: October 26, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28