Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 CANDY M. R., Case No. 2:24-cv-00927-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 1] 10 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiff requests authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (Docket No. 1), and has submitted an amended complaint (Docket No. 12). 14 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 15 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. The application 16 has sufficiently shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, 17 the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to § 1915. 18 II. Screening the Complaint 19 When a party seeks permission to pursue a civil case in forma pauperis, courts will screen 20 the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A central function of this screening process is to 21 “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that 22 paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the cost of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 23 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 24 With respect to social security appeals specifically, judges in this District have outlined 25 some basic requirements for complaints to satisfy the Court’s screening. First, the complaint must 26 establish that administrative remedies were exhausted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the 27 civil action was commenced within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint 28 must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the 1} nature of the plaintiff's disability and when the plaintiff claims to have become disabled. Fourth, 2|| the complaint must identify the nature of the plaintiffs disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See, e.g., 4l| Graves v. Colvin, 2015 WL 357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (collecting cases).! 5 The Court has reviewed the amended complaint and finds it is not sufficient to survive 6|| screening. As to the grounds for appeal, the amended complaint alleges that the decision below 7|| was not supported by substantial evidence and contains legal errors. Docket No. 12 at 9 9. Simply 8|| parroting the standard of review on appeal is not sufficient. Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *2. Accordingly, the amended complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 10] Conclusion 11 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED with the caveat that the 13 fees must be paid if recovery is made. At this time, Plaintiff is not required to pre-pay 14 the filing fee. 15 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of 16 prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. The 17 Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance of 18 subpoenas at government expense. 19 3. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. A second amended 20 complaint must be filed by July 12, 2024. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 28, 2024 . 23 Zé — fo Nancy J. Koppe. 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 ' New rules govern social security cases, which provide in pertinent part that the plaintiff “may” provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief. Supp. R. Soc. Sec. 2(b)(2). In the context of an in forma pauperis screening, however, a social security plaintiff must still provide a sufficient explanation as to her contentions on appeal. Jalal H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 28] 2023 WL 35218, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2023).