# (SS)Hester-McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, E.D. California · December 13, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10761991

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** December 13, 2024
- **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/10761991

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CALEB HESTER-MCCOY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
13 v. DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER,
14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR
SECURITY, REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS
15
Defendant. (Doc. 2)
16
17
18 Plaintiff Caleb Hester-McCoy (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a
19 complaint on December 12, 2024, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
20 Social Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and
21 instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
22 (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and
23 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.
24 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis
25 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by
26 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person…possesses
27 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and
1 finds the requirements of 28 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 plaintiff’s claim is frivolous
7 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
8 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
9 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
19 devoid 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, 673
22 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 p ossibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”
1 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
2 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. (Id.). The Court may grant leave to amend a
3 complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v.
4 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
5 IV. Discussion and Analysis
6 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying
7 disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
8 which provides:
9
Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing
10 to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a
review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the
11 mailing to him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner
may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States
12 for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of
business…The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript
13 of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
14 rehearing.

15
(Id.). Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall
16
be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
17
Following the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability
18
benefits, the Appeals Council gave Plaintiff 60 days from November 14, 2024, plus an additional
19
five (5) days for mail delivery, to file a civil action. (Doc. 1 at 1, ⁋ 2). On December 12, 2024,
20
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final
21
decision. (See id.). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff claims residency in Fresno,
22
California. (Id. at 2, ⁋ 4). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action.
23

24
Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
25

26

27
1} V. 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 Plaintiffs
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 SOORDERED.
8 Dated: _ December 13, 2024 | wv Vv ED
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
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/10761991. Public record. Not legal advice.