The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RAYMOND D. TAVITA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00147-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.
(Docs. 2, 6)
16
17
18 Plaintiff Raymond D. Tavita (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this matter and seeks
19 judicial review of an administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying
20 Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Pending before
21 the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The Court held
22 Plaintiff’s application in abeyance until he submitted copies of the Commissioner’s final decision
23 as well as the notice he received from the Appeals Council. (Doc. 3). Thereafter, Plaintiff
24 complied with the Court’s order and filed the requested documents on February 20, 2024. (Doc.
25 6). For the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and Plaintiff’s
26 application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.
27 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis
1 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person…possesses
2 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
3 Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and
4 finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.
5 II. Screening Requirement
6 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
7 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails
8 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant
9 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous
10 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
11 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504
12 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
13 III. Pleading Standards
14 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
15 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief
16 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
17 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the
18 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512
19 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:
20 … does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that
21 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
22 of further factual enhancement.
23 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
24 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents,
25 673 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,
26 [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.
27 544, 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
1 to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
2 “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”
3
4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth
5 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
6 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint
7 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
8 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
9 IV. Discussion and Analysis
10 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
12 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
13 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
14 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
15 Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.
16
17 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall
18 be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
19 Plaintiff seeks to appeal the final administrative decision denying an application for
20 benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff reports the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a request for
21 review of the decision on November 30, 2023. (Doc. 6 p. 26). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is
22 timely. See Williamson v. Saul, No. 2:18-cv-02304 KJM CKD, 2019 WL 5721660, at *2 (E.D.
23 Cal. Nov. 5, 2019). Plaintiff states he resides in Fresno, California, County of Fresno. (Doc. 1
24 p. 2). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action.
25
26 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
27
Conclusion and Order
2 Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision
3 | denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's
4 | application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed
5 | to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or
6 | Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ February 23, 2024 | hr Rr
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28