1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 DESMOND L.1, Case No. 24-cv-06590-PHK 9 Plaintiff,
10 v. ORDER RE: MANDATORY SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 11 MARTIN O'MALLEY, et al., PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(E)(2)(B) 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 1 13 14 Plaintiff DESMOND L. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under the Social Security Act, 42 15 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social 16 Security Administration, Defendant Martin O’Malley (“Commissioner”), denying Plaintiff’s 17 application for supplemental security income. [Dkt. 1]. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Dkt. 19 7]. The Court now undertakes a determination of whether Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed 20 pursuant to the requirements of § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory 22 review by the Court and sua sponte dismissal if the Court determines the complaint is “frivolous or 23 malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against 24 a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). Complaints in 25 social security cases are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 26 1 In actions involving requested review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security 27 Administration, the Court generally uses the first name and initial of last name (or just both initials) 1 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 2 prisoners.”); see also Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. 3 Cal. June 28, 2012)) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as 4 an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). 5 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the instant Complaint does not “seek[] monetary 6 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). First, 7 the Complaint does not seek monetary relief in the form of damages from the Commissioner, but 8 rather seeks a Judgment and Order reversing the Commissioner’s decision on the benefits at issue. 9 [Dkt. 1]. Second, the Commissioner is not immune from the relief requested. To the contrary, the 10 Social Security Act expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the 11 Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42 12 U.S.C. § 405(g). 13 As in most social security cases, the substantive bulk of the § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening 14 determination focuses on whether the Complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 15 granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Determining whether a complaint satisfies this 16 requirement is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 17 experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (citation omitted). The 18 context here is guided by the fact that this is a social security disability appeal brought by an indigent 19 plaintiff. “Although a complaint in a social security disability appeal may differ in some ways from 20 complaints in other civil cases, it is ‘not exempt from the general rules of civil pleading.’” 21 Lynnmarie E. v. Saul, No. 21-cv-00244-JLB, 2021 WL 2184828, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2021) 22 (quoting Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2). 23 In reviewing a complaint for these purposes, “[t]he standard for determining whether a 24 plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the 25 same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison 26 v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 27 2000)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests whether a claim satisfies the minimum pleading 1 (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)) (“A motion to dismiss under Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests 3 the legal sufficiency of a claim.’”). 4 The requisite minimum pleading standard varies depending on the type of claim(s) at issue. 5 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The currently applicable minimum pleading standard for social security 6 complaints is set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. 7 § 405(g). See Giselle N. v. Kijakazi, 694 F. Supp. 3d 1193, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Under 8 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1), “[t]he complaint must: (A) state that the action is brought under 9 § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation 10 provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; (C) state the name and the county of 11 residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage record 12 benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of benefits claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 13 2(b)(1). Additionally, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(2) provides that the complaint “may include a short 14 and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(2) (emphasis 15 added). 16 Accordingly, for purposes of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must apply Supplemental Rule 17 2(b)(1) to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. Giselle N., 18 694 F. Supp. 3d at 1197. As discussed above, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) first requires that a social 19 security complaint “state that the action is brought under § 405(g).” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. 20 R. 2(b)(1)(A). In the instant Complaint, Plaintiff states: “[t]his is an action seeking court review of 21 the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social 22 Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)).” [Dkt. 1 at 1]. Accordingly, the Court finds that 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the first pleading requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 24 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) next requires that a social security complaint “identify the final 25 decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with 26 the final decision.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(B).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 DESMOND L.1, Case No. 24-cv-06590-PHK 9 Plaintiff,
10 v. ORDER RE: MANDATORY SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 11 MARTIN O'MALLEY, et al., PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(E)(2)(B) 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 1 13 14 Plaintiff DESMOND L. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under the Social Security Act, 42 15 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social 16 Security Administration, Defendant Martin O’Malley (“Commissioner”), denying Plaintiff’s 17 application for supplemental security income. [Dkt. 1]. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Dkt. 19 7]. The Court now undertakes a determination of whether Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed 20 pursuant to the requirements of § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory 22 review by the Court and sua sponte dismissal if the Court determines the complaint is “frivolous or 23 malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against 24 a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). Complaints in 25 social security cases are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 26 1 In actions involving requested review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security 27 Administration, the Court generally uses the first name and initial of last name (or just both initials) 1 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 2 prisoners.”); see also Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. 3 Cal. June 28, 2012)) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as 4 an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). 5 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the instant Complaint does not “seek[] monetary 6 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). First, 7 the Complaint does not seek monetary relief in the form of damages from the Commissioner, but 8 rather seeks a Judgment and Order reversing the Commissioner’s decision on the benefits at issue. 9 [Dkt. 1]. Second, the Commissioner is not immune from the relief requested. To the contrary, the 10 Social Security Act expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the 11 Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42 12 U.S.C. § 405(g). 13 As in most social security cases, the substantive bulk of the § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening 14 determination focuses on whether the Complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 15 granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Determining whether a complaint satisfies this 16 requirement is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 17 experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (citation omitted). The 18 context here is guided by the fact that this is a social security disability appeal brought by an indigent 19 plaintiff. “Although a complaint in a social security disability appeal may differ in some ways from 20 complaints in other civil cases, it is ‘not exempt from the general rules of civil pleading.’” 21 Lynnmarie E. v. Saul, No. 21-cv-00244-JLB, 2021 WL 2184828, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2021) 22 (quoting Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2). 23 In reviewing a complaint for these purposes, “[t]he standard for determining whether a 24 plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the 25 same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison 26 v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 27 2000)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests whether a claim satisfies the minimum pleading 1 (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)) (“A motion to dismiss under Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests 3 the legal sufficiency of a claim.’”). 4 The requisite minimum pleading standard varies depending on the type of claim(s) at issue. 5 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The currently applicable minimum pleading standard for social security 6 complaints is set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. 7 § 405(g). See Giselle N. v. Kijakazi, 694 F. Supp. 3d 1193, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Under 8 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1), “[t]he complaint must: (A) state that the action is brought under 9 § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation 10 provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; (C) state the name and the county of 11 residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage record 12 benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of benefits claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 13 2(b)(1). Additionally, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(2) provides that the complaint “may include a short 14 and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(2) (emphasis 15 added). 16 Accordingly, for purposes of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must apply Supplemental Rule 17 2(b)(1) to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. Giselle N., 18 694 F. Supp. 3d at 1197. As discussed above, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) first requires that a social 19 security complaint “state that the action is brought under § 405(g).” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. 20 R. 2(b)(1)(A). In the instant Complaint, Plaintiff states: “[t]his is an action seeking court review of 21 the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social 22 Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)).” [Dkt. 1 at 1]. Accordingly, the Court finds that 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the first pleading requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 24 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) next requires that a social security complaint “identify the final 25 decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with 26 the final decision.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(B). 27 Here, the Complaint states that Plaintiff avers “[t]he ALJ unfavorable hearing decision under 1 associated with beneficiary notice control number 21IG147C76342.” [Dkt. 1 at 2]. Construed 2 according to the proper legal standards, the Court finds this information in the Complaint sufficient 3 to satisfy the second requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 4 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) also requires that a social security complaint “state the name and 5 the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed,” and “name the person on 6 whose wage record benefits are claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(C). 7 The Complaint here includes Plaintiff’s full name and names Plaintiff as a party to the action. 8 [Dkt. 1 at 1–2]. The Complaint states that Plaintiff is a resident of Alameda County. [Dkt. 1 at 1]. 9 The undersigned, sitting in the San Francisco Division of this Court, takes judicial notice that 10 Alameda County is within the geographical region of this Court. See Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi 11 Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1358 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The court may take judicial notice of 12 undisputed geographical facts.”); see, e.g., Windom-Mattox v. City of Vacaville, No. C 96-3087 13 VRW, 1996 WL 557748, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 1996) (“The court takes judicial notice that the 14 City of Vacaville is located in Solano County.”). The Complaint identifies Plaintiff as the individual 15 on whose wage record benefits are claimed. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 16 Complaint satisfies the third and fourth requirements of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 17 Finally, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) requires that a social security complaint “state the type 18 of benefits claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(E). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint 19 identifies the type of benefits at issue as “Supplemental Security Income” and “Disability 20 Insurance.” [Dkt. 1 at 2]. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the final 21 pleading requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the minimum 23 pleading requirements to state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For similar reasons, 24 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is neither frivolous nor malicious. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 26 Accordingly, and in light of the above analysis, the Court concludes for purposes of 27 mandatory IFP screening that Plaintiff’s Complaint is not “frivolous or malicious,” does not “fail[] ] defendant who is immune from such relief” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)@(inl). The Court’s 2 || determination is without prejudice to further determinations on the merits as this matter proceeds, 3 after the Commissioner appears and both Parties assert any further arguments, records, or other 4 || matters following the proper procedures and timing requirements for this case. 5 As such, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's Complaint in this case [Dkt. 1] shall NOT be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(e)(2)(B). 8 2. In accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 9 U.S.C. § 405(g), a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security 10 Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Office for 11 the Northern District of California in lieu of service of summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. 12 Soc. Sec. R. 3 (“The court must notify the Commissioner of the commencement of the action 13 by transmitting a Notice of Electronic filing to the appropriate office within the Social 14 Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney for 3 15 the district where the action is filed. . . . The plaintiff need not serve a summons and a 16 complaint under Civil Rule 4.”).
Z 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: October 8, 2024 Ce 4 21 United States Manistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28