The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANDREW LANDGREN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01347-CDB (SS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
13 v.
(Docs. 1, 2)
14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
15 Defendant.
16
17
18 On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff Andrew Landgren (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed
19 the complaint in this action. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an
20 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). While
21 Plaintiff’s application demonstrates that he may be financially eligible to proceed without
22 prepayment of fees in this action, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23 1915(e) and finds that Plaintiff’s complain fails to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court will
24 order Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint before proceeding in this action without the
25 prepayment of fees.
26 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis
27 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by
1 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
2 Here, the Court has reviewed the financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and finds the requirements of
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.
4 II. Screening Requirement
5 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
6 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails
7 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant
8 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous
9 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
10 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504
11 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
12 III. Pleading Standards
13 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
14 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief
15 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
16 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the
17 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512
18 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:
19 … does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that
20 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
21 of further factual enhancement.
22 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
23 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents,
24 673 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal 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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
26 544, 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
27 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
1 “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 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth
4 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
5 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint
6 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
7 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
8 IV. Discussion and Analysis
9 The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides:
10 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
11 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
12 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
13 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
14 Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.
15
16 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall
17 be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
18 In addition, courts within the Ninth Circuit have set forth the following basic requirements
19 that are necessary to survive a screening under Section 1915(e):
20 First, the plaintiff must establish that he has exhausted [his] administrative remedies
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within
21 sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the
judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the
22 nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims [he] became
disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement
23 identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made
by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
24
25 Mercado v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-01713 (NLS), 2023 WL 2336909, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2023)
26 (quoting Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-CV-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev.
27 Mar. 8, 2016) (alterations added)); Graves v. Colvin, No. 2:15-CV-106-RFB-NJK, 2015 WL
357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015).
1 Plaintiff’s complaint is comprised of a stock form document that provides empty spaces to
2 be filled in. Plaintiff has left the majority of the prompts in the complaint blank, corresponding
3 to essential information that the Court must consider in deciding whether it has jurisdiction over
4 this action.
5 For instance, the form asks Plaintiff: “When did you receive notice that the
6 Commissioner’s decision was final?” (Doc. 1 p. 3). Plaintiff is required to establish that he
7 exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that he timely filed
8 this action within 60 days after the notice of a final decision. Without this information, the Court
9 is unable to determine jurisdiction.
10 The form also prompts Plaintiff to provide the basis of the Commissioner’s error. Id. at 2.
11 Plaintiff also failed to respond to that form prompt. By omitting the requested information, the
12 Court is unable to identify the nature of Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Commissioner and,
13 thus, is unable to ascertain jurisdiction. A complaint that merely states that the Commissioner’s
14 decision was wrong is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement. See, e.g., Cribbet v.
15 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-01442-BAM, 2012 WL 5308044, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29,
16 2012). The complaint must establish a minimal factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims such that the
17 Court may discern the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s disability and why relief should be granted.
18 Id.
19 Finally, the complaint should have an attached copy of the Commissioner’s final decision
20 as well as a copy of the notice Plaintiff received when his appeal was denied by the Social
21 Security Appeals counsel.
22 V. Conclusion
23 For the forgoing reasons, the Court DIRECTS plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
24 30 days of this order that cures the deficiencies identified above. The Court shall hold Plaintiff’s
25 motion to proceed in forma pauperis in abeyance until Plaintiff timely files an amended
26 complaint.
27
1 Failure to timely comply with the Court’s directions may result in a recommendation
2 | that this action be dismissed.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
“| Dated: September 13, 2023 | Mw Vv R~
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28