(SS) Mata v. Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN PAUL MATA, Case No. 1:22-cv-01517-CDB (SS) 12 Petitioner, 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 Respondent. (ECF No. 2) 16 17 18 Petitioner John Paul Mata (“Petitioner”) seeks judicial review of an administrative decision 19 of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Petitioner’s claim for disability benefits under 20 the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). For the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of 22 the new case documents and Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate. 23 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis 24 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by 25 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assts such person…possesses 26 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 27 Here, the Court reviewed the financial status affidavit (ECF No. 2) and finds the requirements of 1 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 petitioner’s claim is 7 frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, 8 whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. 9 Hermandez, 504 U.S. 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: 17 Rule 8 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 devoid 19 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, 22 673 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 possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.” 1 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 2 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are 3 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint 4 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 5 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 IV. Discussion and Analysis 7 Petitioner seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying 8 disability benefits. The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which 9 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 Untied 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 Petitioner seeks to appeal the final administrative decision denying an application for 19 benefits. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 2). Petitioner reports the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a 20 request for review of the decision on September 23, 2022. Id. Thus, Petitioner’s complaint is 21 timely. Petitioner states he resides in Modesto, California, County of Stanislaus. Id. at ¶ 4. 22 Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action. 23 V. Conclusion and Order 24 Petitioner’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision 25 denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 26 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of 27 Court is directed to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re 1 | Consent or Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for 2 | Reassignment form. 3 IS SO ORDERED. +! Dated: _ November 30, 2022 | Mw Vv Ry 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