BAEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: September 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: MARIA D BAEZ, :

: Civil Action No. 24-1206 (JXN) Plaintiff, :

: MEMORANDUM OPINION v. :

: & COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, : ORDER

: Defendant :

NEALS, District Judge: Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Maria D Baez’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) (the “IFP Application”). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s IFP Application is GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court shall FILE Plaintiff’s Complaint. 1. Upon submission of the IFP Application, the Complaint is subject to a sua sponte screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court may dismiss the Complaint if it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court applies the same standard of review as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Schreane v. Seana, 506 F.App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). 2. The Court may also dismiss the Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8. Ruther v. State Kentucky Officers, 556 F.App'x 91, 92 (3d Cir. 2014). Rule 8 requires that claims for relief contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, a complaint is dismissed when it “is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Ruther, 556 F.App’x at 92 (citation and internal quotations omitted). 3. Here, Plaintiff appeals the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) that denied Plaintiff’s

disability claim. (Compl. ¶¶ 1,7). Plaintiff alleges the following “severe medical impairments” that purportedly entitle her to disability benefits: “orthopedic[,] neurological[,] and psychiatric conditions[,] as well as obesity.” (Id. at ¶ 5). Plaintiff claims that she “exhausted her administrative remedies” and Defendant “denied [P]laintiff’s original application” for disability benefits, as well as “her application for reconsideration[,]” which were “clearly erroneous in law and fact.” (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the denial of her disability claim. (Id. at 2). At this early stage of litigation, Plaintiff’s Complaint may proceed on these facts. For all the foregoing reasons, it is hereby, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall FILE Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1).

DATED: September 9, 2024 s/ Julien Xavier Neals JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge