Jackson v. O'Malley

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 28, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00561
StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. O'Malley (Jackson v. O'Malley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson v. O'Malley, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Michele J., Case No. 2:24-cv-00561-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 12 No. 1) filed on March 21, 2024. 13 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 14 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United 15 States must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s 16 failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Plaintiff has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an 19 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 20 request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 21 The Court will next screen Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-1. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 II. Screening the Complaint 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable 5 claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may 6 be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(e)(2). 8 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 9 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 10 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 11 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 12 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 13 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 14 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 15 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 16 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 18 insufficient. Id. 19 If a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration, 20 before filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. 21 § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) 22 (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been 23 party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the 24 claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for disability benefits, the claimant 25 may request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied at the reconsideration level, a 26

27 1 Although § 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings. Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If the ALJ denies the claim, a 2 claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council 3 declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then request judicial review. See generally 4 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 5 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, she may obtain judicial review of 6 a SSA decision denying benefits by filing suit within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Id. 7 An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought “in the district court 8 of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” Id. The complaint 9 should state the nature of plaintiff’s disability, when plaintiff claims she became disabled, and 10 when and how she exhausted her administrative remedies. The complaint should also contain a 11 plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of plaintiff’s disagreement with the 12 determination made by the SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. 13 A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted 14 her administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the 15 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is 16 substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and 17 (b) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social 18 Security Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 B. Analysis 20 Here, Plaintiff alleges that her applications for disability insurance benefits and 21 supplemental security income were denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by the 22 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) following a hearing. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff further 23 alleges that on February 9, 2024, the Appeals Council denied the request for review, and, at that 24 time, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 3. Plaintiff filed this 25 action on March 21, 2024, which is within the allowable period. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has 26 exhausted the administrative remedies and timely commenced this action. 27 The complaint also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the District of Nevada and the 1 Finally, the complaint includes sufficient facts to state a claim for relief, alleging that 2 (1)“the ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom and limitation 3 testimony that [Plaintiff] could not engage in fulltime work on a consistent basis”; (2) “the ALJ 4 did not properly weigh the medical evidence that [Plaintiff] had more limitations as expressed by 5 Dr. Sinkov”; and (3) “the ALJ finding of the ability to perform work is not supported by 6 substantial evidence because the vocational witness’s testimony relied upon was inconsistent with 7 reliable government data.” Id. at 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jackson v. O'Malley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-omalley-nvd-2024.