The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SENA MAE FERTIG, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1390 JLT
)
12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
) TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
13 v. ) (Doc. 3)
)
14 ANDREW SAUL, ) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ISSUE
Commissioner of Social Security, ) SUMMONS AND CASE DOCUMENTS, AND
15 ) COMPLETE E-SERVICE
Defendant. )
16 ) ORDER STAYING THE ACTION
)
17
18 Sena Mae Fertig 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, 3) 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. 3), 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). The regulations
14 “operate as a statute of limitations setting the time period in which a claimant may appeal a final
15 decision of the Commissioner.” Berrigan v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115390, at * 4-5 (E.D. Cal.
16 Oct. 29, 2010) (citing Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424
17 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)).
18 Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council responded to a request for review of the decision denying
19 benefits on July 16, 2021, at which time the decision of the administrative law judge became the final
20 decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at 2) Plaintiff’s request for judicial review was due within 65
21 days of the date of Appeals Council’s notice, or no later than September 19, 2021. 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”). Because Plaitniff initiated this action by filing a complaint prior to that date, the
24 request for judicial review was filed within the time frame directed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
25 V. Conclusion and Order
26 Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision denying
27 Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
28 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is GRANTED;
1 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting
2 Commissioner of Social Security;
3 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with the Order regarding
4 Consent and the Consent Form; and
5 4. The Clerk of Court SHALL deliver to the Commissioner of Social Security
6 Administration and the United States Attorney’s Office at their designated email addresses a notice of
7 electronic filing of the action along with the summons and complaint. The Commissioner has agreed
8 not to raise a defense of insufficient service of process if provided with notice of a complaint as
9 detailed in this order.
10 5. After service, the matter will remain STAYED pursuant to General Order 615, until the
11 administrative record is filed or further order of the Court lifting the stay.
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 Dated: September 17, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
15 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28