(SS) Laws v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JEROME LAWS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00309-CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER’S 13 v. FINAL DECISION AND A COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED FROM APPEALS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, COUNCIL DENYING HIS CLAIM 15 Defendant. ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE LONG-FORM APPLICATION TO 16 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR 18 STATEMENT HE WISHES TO PROCEED 19 (Docs. 1, 2) 20 30-DAY DEADLINE 21 22 On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff Anthony Jerome Laws, proceeding pro se, filed the 23 complaint in this action. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). However, 25 Plaintiff’s application does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine 26 whether he is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. Accordingly, the 27 Court will order Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239. If Plaintiff is unwilling to complete 1 and submit the long form application, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full. 2 Separately, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 3 finds that Plaintiff did not establish exhaustion of his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 4 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his application by filing a copy of the 5 Commissioner’s final decision as well as a copy of the notice he received from the Appeals 6 Council. The Court also finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional 7 (Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment) claims – Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a first 8 amended complaint within 30 days that cures those deficiencies or a statement explaining he 9 wishes to proceed on the original complaint as screened herein. 10 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis 11 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by 12 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person…possesses 13 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 14 Here, the Court has reviewed the financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and finds the requirements of 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied. 16 II. Screening Requirement 17 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 18 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails 19 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant 20 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous 21 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not 22 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 23 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). 24 III. Pleading Standards 25 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief 27 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 2 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8: 3 … does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that 4 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 5 of further factual enhancement. 6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 8 673 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further, 9 [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. 10 544, 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 11 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 12 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 13 possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.” 14 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 15 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are 16 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint 17 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 18 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 19 IV. Discussion and Analysis 20 The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides: 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 26 27 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall 1 In addition, courts within the Ninth Circuit have set forth the following basic requirements 2 that are necessary to survive a screening under Section 1915(e): 3 First, the plaintiff must establish that he has exhausted [his] administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within 4 sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the 5 nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims [he] became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement 6 identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 7 8 Mercado v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-01713 (NLS), 2023 WL 2336909, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2023) 9 (quoting Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-CV-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. 10 Mar. 8, 2016) (alterations added)); Graves v. Colvin, No. 2:15-CV-106-RFB-NJK, 2015 WL 11 357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015). 12 Read liberally, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be an appeal of the Commissioner’s 13 decision denying the award of benefits to Plaintiff. Plaintiff resides in Bakersfield, California., 14 and alleges that he applied for Social Security income in July 2021, and was denied in December 15 2021. (Doc. 1 p. 5). Thereafter, he requested review before an administrative law judge and 16 received an adverse decision on April 14, 2023. He thereafter requested review of that decision, 17 which was denied in January 2024. Id. Plaintiff claims that his application was wrongfully denied 18 since his doctor told him that he is unemployable due to his diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, 19 panic disorder, and anxiety and depression. Id. Plaintiff asserts that he should be approved for 20 social security income. Id. at 6. 21 In addition to seeking the award of benefits, Plaintiff also seeks $100,000.00 in relief for 22 the pain and suffering he endured in what appears to be claims for violations of the Eighth and 23 Fourteenth Amendments. The United States Supreme Court has found that Section 405(g) 24 provides the exclusive mechanism for bringing Social Security Claims in federal court. Shalala 25 v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 10 (2000). Section 405(h) bars all other 26 claims, including claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with a claim for Social Security 27 benefits or if the “substantive basis” of the claim is the Social Security Act. Heckler v. Ringer, 1 intertwined” with his claim for benefits and therefore are barred by Section 405(h). See Okimoto 2 v. Social Security Administration, No. 15-00425 HG-RLP, 2015 WL 7264827, at *3 (D. Haw. 3 Oct. 22, 2015). 4 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, 5 Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a first amended complaint within 30 days in which he may 6 choose to remove the constitutional claims. If Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint 7 that maintains the constitutional claims, the undersigned will recommend to an assigned district 8 judge that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that the 9 constitutional claims be dismissed. 10 Additionally, Plaintiff is required to establish that he exhausted his administrative remedies 11 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that he timely filed this action within 60 days after the notice 12 of a final decision. Without this information, the Court is unable to determine jurisdiction. 13 Although Plaintiff avers that he received a final decision on January 2024, and that the deadline 14 to file his claim was March 15, 2024 (Docs. 1,3), Plaintiff’s complaint in this Court should have 15 an attached copy of the Commissioner’s final decision as well as a copy of the notice Plaintiff 16 received when his appeal was denied by the Social Security Appeals counsel. 17 V. Conclusion and Order 18 For the forgoing reasons, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward to Plaintiff 19 an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 20 239. 21 And the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 22 1. By no later than April 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court either (1) a completed 23 AO 239 Long Form or (2) the $405.00 filing fee. 24 2. By no later than April 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court copies of the 25 Commissioner’ final decision as well as the notice he received from the Appeals Council denying 26 review. The Court shall hold any resubmitted motion by Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis 27 in abeyance until it receives the documents identified above. 1 | amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified above or (2) a statement that he 2 | wishes to proceed on his original complaint, including the constitutional claims alleged therein 3 | for which the undersigned has found this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to 4 | correct the deficiencies in the operative complaint identified by the undersigned in this Order 5 | will result in a recommendation to deny Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application and to dismiss 6 | the complaint. 7 Plaintiff is warned that any amended complaint will supersede the prior complaint and must 8 | plead all his claims without reference to a prior complaint. 9 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned shall recommend 10 | that this action be dismissed. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: _Mareh 15, 2024 | br 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28