# (SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security > District Court, E.D. California · July 6, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020281 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** July 6, 2020 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020281 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS GARCIA, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0924- JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ) TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 2) 14 ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Carlos Garcia seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review of the 19 administrative decision denying Social Security benefits. Pending before the Court are the complaint 20 and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2) For the following reasons, the Court finds 21 issuance of the new case documents 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 is 6 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). The purpose of the 14 complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the grounds upon which the complaint 15 stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted, 16 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 17 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 18 factual enhancement. 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague 20 and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 21 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further, 22 [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 23 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 24 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 25 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.’ 26 27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 28 assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal 1 conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a 2 complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 3 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 IV. Discussion and Analysis 5 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability 6 benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides: 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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, 11 with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 12 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 13 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). 14 Plaintiff asserts the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a request for review of the ALJ’s 15 decision on May 1, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 1) Thus, the complaint was to be filed within sixty-five days, or 16 no later than July 6, 2020. Because Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint prior to that 17 date, the request for judicial review was timely under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 18 V. Conclusion and Order 19 Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision denying 20 Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; 22 2. Because the case is STAYED by General Order 615, no summons will issue at this time. 23 Once the stay is lifted, the case will proceed. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 6, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020281. Public record. Not legal advice.