Lathrop v. O'Malley

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 25, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00565
StatusUnknown

This text of Lathrop v. O'Malley (Lathrop 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
Lathrop v. O'Malley, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 LAURIANNE V. LATHROP, Case No. 2:24-cv-00565-NJK

8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. [Docket No. 1] 10 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff requests authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (Docket No. 1) and has submitted a complaint (Docket No. 1-1). 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). With respect to social security appeals specifically, judges 21 in this District have outlined some basic requirements for complaints to satisfy the Court’s 22 screening. First, the complaint must establish that administrative remedies were exhausted 23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within 60 days after 24 notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the 25 plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when 26 the plaintiff claims to have become disabled. Fourth, the complaint must identify the nature of the 27 plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and 28 1 show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See, e.g., Graves v. Colvin, 2015 WL 357121, *2 (D. 2 Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (collecting cases).1 3 The Court has reviewed the complaint submitted by Plaintiff, and finds the required 4 elements satisfied in this case. 5 III. Conclusion 6 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 7 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED with the caveat that the 8 fees shall be paid if recovery is made. At this time, Plaintiff shall not be required to 9 pre-pay the filing fee. 10 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of 11 prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. The 12 Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance of 13 subpoenas at government expense. 14 3. The Clerk of Court shall file the Complaint. 15 4. The Clerk shall provide notice of this action to the Commissioner pursuant to Rule 3 16 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security. 17 5. From this point forward, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been 18 entered by counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every pleading, motion or other 19 document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the 20 original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct 21 copy of the document was personally served or sent by mail to the defendants or 22 counsel for the defendants. The Court may disregard any paper received by a district 23 judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper 24 25

26 1 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). 27 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). ] received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk which fails to include a 2 certificate of service. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: March 25, 2024 Go Nancy J. Kopp 6 United States M agistrate Judge

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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