# (SS) Barajas v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, E.D. California · March 9, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10051054

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 9, 2023
- **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/10051054

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 LAURA BARAJAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00342-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
13 v. DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE
SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER, AND
14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR
REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS
15 Defendant.
(Doc. 2)
16

17
18 Plaintiff Laura Barajas (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of an administrative decision of
19 the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits under the
20 Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
21 forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case
22 documents and Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.
23 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis
24 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by
25 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assts such person…possesses
26 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
27 Here, the Court reviewed the financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and finds the requirements of 28
1 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.
2 II. Screening Requirement
3 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
4 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails
5 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant
6 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A petitioner’s claim is
7 frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
8 whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v.
9 Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
10 III. Pleading Standards
11 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
12 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief
13 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
14 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the
15 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512
16 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:

17 … does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that
18 offers 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
19 of further factual enhancement.
20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
21 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents,
22 673 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,

23 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
24 544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
25 liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin
to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
26 defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
“merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between
27 possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”
1 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth
2 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
3 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint
4 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
5 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
6 IV. Discussion and Analysis
7 The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides:

8 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
9 review of 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
10 may allow. Such action 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
11 business…The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript
of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
12 Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.
13
14 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall
15 be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
16 Petitioner seeks to appeal the final administrative decision denying an application for
17 benefits. (Doc. 1). Petitioner reports the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a request for
18 review of the decision on January 3, 2023. Id. at 2. Thus, Petitioner’s complaint is timely.
19 Petitioner states she resides in Tulare County in the State of California. Id. at 1. Therefore, the
20 Court has jurisdiction over this action.
21
22
23
24 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

25
26
27
Conclusion and Order
2 Petitioner’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision
3 | denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
4 | Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
5 | is directed to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re
6 | Consent or Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for
7 | Reassignment form.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ March 9, 2023 | Word
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10051054. Public record. Not legal advice.