2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 NIGEL RAY LACHEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01438-BNW 6 Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v. 8 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 Pro se plaintiff Nigel Ray Lachey seeks judicial review of an administrative decision 13 denying his application for Social Security benefits. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. ECF 15 No. 4. On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6), 16 which is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will 17 allow Lachey to proceed with this case. 18 I. Screening the Complaint 19 A. Standard of Review 20 Complaints filed by any plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to a mandatory 21 screening by the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 22 2000). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that 23 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 24 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 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 1 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 2 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 3 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 4 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 5 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 6 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 7 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 8 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 9 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 11 insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through 12 amendment, a plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the 13 complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 14 Even following the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal, the Court has 15 an “obligation . . . where the petitioner is pro se . . . to construe the pleadings liberally and to 16 afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 17 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). But “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies 18 only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989); see 19 also Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. 20 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)) (noting that a liberal construction may not 21 be used to supply an essential element of the claim absent from the complaint). 22 In the context of social security appeals, if a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by 23 the Social Security Administration, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before 24 filing a lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 25 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only 26 after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has 27 made a final decision on the claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for 1 at the reconsideration level, a claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge 2 (“ALJ”). If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant may request review of the decision by the 3 Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may 4 then request judicial review. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 5 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, he may obtain judicial review of a 6 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 he became disabled, and 10 when and how he exhausted his 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 his 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 (b) 17 whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security 18 Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 B. Analysis 20 Here, Lachey alleges in his amended complaint that the Administrative Law Judge 21 (“ALJ”) denied his application for supplemental security income on December 20, 2019. ECF 22 No. 6 at 10. He further alleges that on June 11, 2020, the Appeals Council denied review of the 23 ALJ’s decision. Id. at 6. Plaintiff then filed this action on August 4, 2020. Thus, liberally 24 construing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, it appears that he exhausted the administrative 25 remedies and timely commenced this action. 26 Additionally, the amended complaint indicates the nature of Lachey’s disability and its 27 alleged onset date. Id. at 2. It also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the District of Nevada. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 NIGEL RAY LACHEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01438-BNW 6 Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v. 8 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 Pro se plaintiff Nigel Ray Lachey seeks judicial review of an administrative decision 13 denying his application for Social Security benefits. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. ECF 15 No. 4. On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6), 16 which is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will 17 allow Lachey to proceed with this case. 18 I. Screening the Complaint 19 A. Standard of Review 20 Complaints filed by any plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to a mandatory 21 screening by the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 22 2000). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that 23 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 24 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 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 1 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 2 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 3 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 4 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 5 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 6 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 7 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 8 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 9 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 11 insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through 12 amendment, a plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the 13 complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 14 Even following the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal, the Court has 15 an “obligation . . . where the petitioner is pro se . . . to construe the pleadings liberally and to 16 afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 17 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). But “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies 18 only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989); see 19 also Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. 20 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)) (noting that a liberal construction may not 21 be used to supply an essential element of the claim absent from the complaint). 22 In the context of social security appeals, if a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by 23 the Social Security Administration, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before 24 filing a lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 25 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only 26 after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has 27 made a final decision on the claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for 1 at the reconsideration level, a claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge 2 (“ALJ”). If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant may request review of the decision by the 3 Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may 4 then request judicial review. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 5 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, he may obtain judicial review of a 6 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 he became disabled, and 10 when and how he exhausted his 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 his 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 (b) 17 whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security 18 Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 B. Analysis 20 Here, Lachey alleges in his amended complaint that the Administrative Law Judge 21 (“ALJ”) denied his application for supplemental security income on December 20, 2019. ECF 22 No. 6 at 10. He further alleges that on June 11, 2020, the Appeals Council denied review of the 23 ALJ’s decision. Id. at 6. Plaintiff then filed this action on August 4, 2020. Thus, liberally 24 construing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, it appears that he exhausted the administrative 25 remedies and timely commenced this action. 26 Additionally, the amended complaint indicates the nature of Lachey’s disability and its 27 alleged onset date. Id. at 2. It also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the District of Nevada. Id. 1 Finally, the amended complaint includes sufficient facts to state a claim for relief, alleging 2 || that the ALJ’s findings that Plaintiff's medical impairments “did not meet the criteria of one 3 || extreme or two marked limitations” were “not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” 4 || Jd. at 2-3. Accordingly, Lachey may proceed with his claims. 5 1. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must serve the 6 |} Commissioner of the Social Security Administration by sending a copy of the First Amended 7 || Complaint (ECF No. 6) and an accompanying summons by certified mail to: (1) Office of the 8 || Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX, Social Security Administration, 160 Spear St., Suite 800, 9 || San Francisco, California 94105-1545; and (2) the Attorney General of the United States, 10 || Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530. 11 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must issue summons 12 || to the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada and deliver the summons and First 13 |} Amended Complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service. 14 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that from this point forward, Plaintiff must 15 || serve on Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by an attorney, on the attorney, a copy of 16 || every pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff 17 || must include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true 18 || and correct copy of the document was personally served or sent by mail to the Defendant or 19 || counsel for the Defendant. The Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or 20 || magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, 21 || magistrate judge, or the Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. 22 DATED: September 14, 2020 23 pnla are fatn BRENDA WEKSLER 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28