Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
12
ORDER Granting 9 and 11 Motions to Proceed IFP, and ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/29/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDWARD L. HALL,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15
16
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv-00693-JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. 9, 11)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 1)
17
18
Edward L. Hall (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se with an action
19
regarding Social Security. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on May 2, 2011.
20
(Doc. 1). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
21
GRANTED, and his complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
22
I. Proceeding in forma paueris
23
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees
24
when an individual “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . .
25
possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. §
26
1915(a). Plaintiff receives “General Relief” in the amount of $300, does not possess property,
27
and has no savings. (Doc. 11). Therefore, Plaintiff’s application satisfies the requirements of 28
28
U.S.C. § 1915(a), and his motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.
1
1
2
II. Screening Requirement
When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
3
complaint, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of
4
poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on
5
which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
6
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the
7
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
8
available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
9
III. Pleading Standards
10
General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil
11
Procedure. A pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court’s
12
jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief;
13
and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different
14
types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro
15
se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards” than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v.
16
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).
17
A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain
18
and succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).
19
The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and
20
the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512
21
(2002). The Supreme Court noted,
22
23
24
Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me unlawfully accusation. A pleading
that 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 of further factual enhancement.
25
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
26
Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673
27
F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
28
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a
2
1
4
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The
plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a
complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it
“stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.
5
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Where the factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their
6
truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; conclusions in
7
the pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. If the Court determines that the
8
complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, the Court may grant leave to amend to the extent that
9
deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
2
3
10
1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
11
A. Jurisdiction
12
Plaintiff appears to state a claim for Social Security benefits, because his “Civil Cover
13
Sheet” states “Social Security” (Doc. 2), and in the complaint Plaintiff states a doctor said he
14
could not work. However, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking review of a decision by the
15
Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits. If so, the Court would have
16
jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in relevant part:
17
21
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 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 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 . . .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
Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
23
reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). The Supreme
24
Court noted that the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of
25
stale eligibility claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 420 U.S. 99, 108 (1977).
18
19
20
26
Here, Plaintiff failed to state the facts upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends. The
27
Court will infer that by indicating a Fresno, California, address on the complaint, Plaintiff alleges
28
that he resides within the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1 at 1). However, Plaintiff has not
3
1
alleged that he received a decision of an administrative law judge or a review of the decision by
2
the Social Security Administration. Without these basic facts, the Court is unable to determine
3
whether it has jurisdiction over the matter.
4
B. Requirements of the Local Rules
5
The Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
6
supplement the Federal Rules. Under Local Rule 206, the following information must be
7
included in a complaint:
8
9
(1) In actions involving claims for retirement, survivors, disability, health insurance
and black lung benefits, the last four digits of the 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
10
11
(2) In actions involving claims for supplemental security income benefits, the last
four digits of social security number of the plaintiff.
12
LR 206. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that he seeks Social Security. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
13
complaint was not in compliance with the Local Rules, as it should contain the last four digits of
14
Plaintiff’s Social Security number.
15
IV. Leave to Amend the Complaint
16
If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be
17
granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.
18
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should
19
only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears
20
beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in
21
support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,
22
467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.
23
Roosevelt Lake Log Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal of a
24
pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff
25
cannot prevail on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would be futile.
26
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.
27
28
Construing Plaintiff’s statements in his complaint liberally, the Court cannot find with
certainty that he cannot allege facts, consistent with allegations, in support of the claim or claims
4
1
that would entitle him to relief, though it is not clear whether the Court has jurisdiction over the
2
matter. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of his
3
complaint by stating the necessary information, including facts such that the Court may
4
determine that it has jurisdiction over the matter. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in a
5
recommendation that the matter be dismissed with prejudice.
6
Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make
7
Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be
8
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended
9
complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).
10
Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in
11
the case.
12
The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be
13
labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with
14
this order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to
15
Local Rule 110 and will result in dismissal of this action.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
17
1. Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 9, 11) are GRANTED;
18
2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and
19
3. Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order to
20
file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law,
21
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: June 29, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
