Melnichuk v. Kijakazi

CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedSeptember 22, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-00210
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Melnichuk v. Kijakazi, (D. Alaska 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

HOPE MELNICHUK,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:23-cv-00210-SLG

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

SCREENING ORDER

On September 18, 2023, self-represented litigant, Hope Melnichuk (“Plaintiff”), filed a Social Security Complaint seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).1 Plaintiff also filed an Application to Waive the Filing Fee (Non-Prisoner) and a Motion Requesting Volunteer Attorney.2 Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in federal court without paying the filing fee.3

1 Docket 1. 2 Dockets 2–3. 3 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12cv00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting section 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints”). In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action: (i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.4

To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim on which relief may be granted, courts consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”5 In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.6 Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would be futile.7 Futility exists

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 6 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)). 7 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Case No. 3:23-cv-00210-SLG when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]” 8 DISCUSSION

A claimant in a Social Security case must exhaust her administrative remedies before filing a Complaint in federal district court.9 This means a claimant must receive a “final decision” from the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) before a district court can review the decision. In social security cases, this administrative review process generally consists of the following steps:

(1) initial determination; (2) hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”); and (3) Appeals Council review.10 A decision is “not final until the Appeals Council denies review or, if it accepts a case for review, issues its own findings on the merits.”11 For a federal court to review the final decision, a claimant must file the request within 60 days after receiving notice of the decision to a claimant or as

otherwise allowed by the Commissioner.12 Further, it is presumed that a claimant

8 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(a), 406(g). 10 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900, 416.1400. 11 Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012). See also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106–07 (2000) (“SSA regulations provide that, if the Appeals Council grants review of a claim, then the decision that the Council issues is the Commissioner’s final decision. But if, … , the Council denies the request for review, the ALJ’s opinion becomes the final decision.”); Luther v. Berryhill, 891 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (ALJ’s decision became final decision of the Commissioner when Appeals Council denied request for review). 12 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Case No. 3:23-cv-00210-SLG has received an order five days after the date of the decision, unless the claimant demonstrates otherwise. A. 60-Day Time to File a Civil Action

Plaintiff attached to her Complaint a letter from the Social Security Administration dated July 1, 2023, informing her that the agency had enclosed copies of agency orders requested by Plaintiff. She also included the attachments to the letter, which include: (1) a copy of the SSA’s Notice of Order of Appeals Council Dismissing Request for Review dated January 6, 2023; and (2) a copy of

the ALJ’s Notice of Unfavorable Decision dated March 2, 2021.13 Construing the Complaint liberally, it appears Plaintiff seeks to appeal the Appeals Council’s decision dismissing her request for review. However, the Appeals Council’s Notice and Order are dated January 6, 2023, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she did not receive the Notice and Order within five days of that date.14 And even if

Plaintiff did not receive the Notice and Order until early July, she did not file this action until September 18, 2023–more than 60 days after that date. In sum, Plaintiff’s action appears to be untimely and cannot proceed unless Plaintiff provides the Court with evidence that the Appeals Council has granted her an extension of time to file a civil action.

13 Docket 1-1 at 1–20. 14 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Of note, the Notice and Order of January 6, 2023 and the letter of July 1, 2023, were both sent to the same post office box of Plaintiff.

Case No. 3:23-cv-00210-SLG The Appeals Council Notice and Order notified Plaintiff of the necessary steps in the event she disagreed with the Appeals Council’s decision. Specifically, the SSA letter to Plaintiff directed:

You have 60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review).

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

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Gordon v. City of Oakland
627 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Jesse J. Calhoun v. Donald N. Stahl James Brazelton
254 F.3d 845 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
Sims v. Apfel
530 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Palmer v. Valdez
560 F.3d 965 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Temple v. Ellerthorpe
586 F. Supp. 848 (D. Rhode Island, 1984)
Erineo Cano v. Nicole Taylor
739 F.3d 1214 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Carol Luther v. Nancy Berryhill
891 F.3d 872 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Melnichuk v. Kijakazi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnichuk-v-kijakazi-akd-2023.