(SS) Urias v. Social Security Administation, No. 1:2007cv01444 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 2 Application For Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with Leave to File and Amended Complaint No Later Than Thirty Days After the Date of Service of This Order signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/11/2007. Amended Complaint due by 11/15/2007.(Esteves, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(SS) Urias v. Social Security Administation Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Doc. 3 Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SEGUNDO T. URIAS, JR., 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social 13 Security, 14 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 2) ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER (DOC. 1) 16 Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court. 17 The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(15) and 72-304. 19 I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 on October 4, 2007. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that 22 makes the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request 23 to proceed in forma pauperis IS GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 II. Screening the Complaint 25 In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma 26 pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss 27 the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 7 1 of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or 2 malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 3 or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 4 such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides: 6 12 A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. 13 Local Rule 8-204 provides: 14 When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), it (i) shall appear as the first allegation of any complaint, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim; (ii) shall be styled “Jurisdiction,” (iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other basis of federal jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim. 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required 19 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a 20 flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and 21 state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. 22 Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 23 Plaintiff’s complaint states the following: 24 26 I am appealing the two denial decision of the appellant courts because I am unable to work due to injuries to my back. I would like the courts to retroact my disability claim to 9/3/04. 27 It thus appears that the relief Plaintiff seeks is review of 25 28 a denial, or two denials, of a disability claim relating to back 2 Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 7 1 injuries, and retroactive disability benefits to September 3, 2 2004. 3 However, the complaint is lacking important information. 4 III. Jurisdictional Allegations 5 Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the 6 grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends. Plaintiff 7 names “Social Security” as the Defendant and thus clearly appears 8 to be seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social 9 Security in which benefits relating to disability were denied. 10 The Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 11 405(g), which provides in pertinent part: 12 21 Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing 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 mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security 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 business, or, if he does not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia....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 Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 22 Here, however, Plaintiff has failed to state the facts upon 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 which jurisdiction depends; Plaintiff has not clearly stated that 24 it was the Commissioner of Social Security who made a final 25 decision that denied him benefits. The Court will infer that by 26 indicating his Corcoran address on the complaint, Plaintiff is 27 alleging that he resides within the Eastern District of 28 California. However, Plaintiff has not alleged that a final 3 Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 4 of 7 1 administrative decision was made in his case; rather, he refers 2 to two decisions of the appellate courts. 3 Further, Plaintiff has not identified the name of the 4 administrative proceeding or the date of the decision or of the 5 date upon which notice of the decision was mailed. 6 Because of this, the complaint is not clear enough to inform 7 the Defendant of which decision it is that Plaintiff seeks this 8 Court to review. Further, it is not clear that this Court has 9 jurisdiction to hear this case. 10 IV. Social Security Number 11 Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, 12 Eastern District of California, Rule 8-206, provides in pertinent 13 part: 14 15 16 17 18 19 Complaints under Titles II, XVI, and XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), and 1395ff... shall contain the following information in addition to the matters otherwise required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules: (1) In actions involving claims for retirement, survivors, disability, health insurance and black lung benefits, the last four digits of social security number of the worker on whose wage record the application for benefits was filed (who may or may not be the plaintiff), or 20 21 (2) In actions involving claims for supplemental security income benefits, the last four digits of social security number of the plaintiff. 22 It is possible that Plaintiff is seeking benefits that come 23 within this rule and that Plaintiff’s complaint should contain 24 the last four digits of his social security number. 25 V. Proper Defendant 26 The proper defendant in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 27 405(g) is the Commissioner of Social Security, who is presently 28 4 Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 5 of 7 1 Michael J. Astrue. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the 2 “Commissioner’s answer”); Butler v. Apfel, 144 F.3d 622, 624 (9th 3 Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has named “Social Security” instead of 4 Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. 5 VI. Lack of Signature on the Complaint 6 Plaintiff’s complaint lacks a signature. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) requires that every paper filed in an 8 action shall be signed by the attorney of record or by the party 9 if not represented by an attorney; an unsigned paper shall be 10 stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly 11 after being called to the attention of the attorney or party. 12 Further, Local Rule 7-131(b) provides that all pleadings and non13 evidentiary documents shall be signed by the individual attorney 14 for the party presenting them or by the party involved if that 15 party is appearing in propria persona. Further, the name of the 16 person signing the document shall be typed underneath the 17 signature. 18 The Court could strike Plaintiff’s complaint. However, in 19 the interest of the efficient administration of justice, the 20 Court hereby notifies Plaintiff of the defect; Plaintiff will be 21 given leave to file an amended complaint, and if Plaintiff does 22 file an amended complaint, it must bear Plaintiff’s signature. If 23 an amended complaint is filed without a signature, then the Court 24 may strike both the original and the amended complaint. 25 VII. Leave to Amend the Complaint 26 If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a 27 claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the 28 deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 5 Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 6 of 7 1 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, 2 or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to 3 state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears 4 beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts, 5 consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or 6 claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & 7 Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 8 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log 9 Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 10 Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is 11 proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail 12 on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend 13 would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128. 14 In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the 15 complaint in its entirety. By not adequately identifying the 16 decision, not stating the last four digits of his Social Security 17 number, and not naming the Commissioner as the Defendant, 18 Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against a proper 19 defendant and has failed to plead facts demonstrating 20 jurisdiction in this Court. 21 However, it is possible that Plaintiff can allege a set of 22 facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim 23 or claims that would entitle Plaintiff to relief. Thus, the Court 24 will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to 25 cure the deficiencies of this complaint by stating the necessary 26 information. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in 27 dismissal of this action without leave to amend. 28 In addition, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot 6 Case 1:07-cv-01444-AWI-SMS Document 3 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 7 of 7 1 refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended 2 complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended 3 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior 4 pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 5 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 6 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended 7 complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in 8 the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 9 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must 10 be sufficiently alleged. 11 Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that 12 1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS 13 GRANTED; and 14 2) Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; 15 and 16 3) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service 17 of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the 18 requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules 19 of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended 20 complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must 21 be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; failure to file an amended 22 complaint in accordance with this order will be considered to be 23 a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local 24 Rule 11-110 and will result in dismissal of this action. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: icido3 27 October 11, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
