Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedFebruary 5, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00054

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marcus Don Powell, No. CV-21-00054-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Marcus Don Powell’s First Amended 16 Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff originally brought this case pro se on January 12, 17 2021 against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and against Administrative Law 18 Judge (“ALJ”) Rebecca Jones. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis on January 15, 2021. The Court has screened Plaintiff’s FAC pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and approves in part and dismisses in part Plaintiff’s claims 21 against the SSA. Plaintiff’s claims against ALJ Jones are dismissed with prejudice. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 When a party proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires the Court 24 to screen lawsuits and dismiss them sue sponte if it determines “the action or appeal…fails 25 to state a claim on which relief may be granted...” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 26 (9th Cir. 2000). To adequately state a claim, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure requires a complaint contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for 28 the court’s jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 1 is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 8(a)(3). While detailed factual allegations are not required, “Threadbare recitals of 3 the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint “must contain sufficient factual 5 matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, a complaint should 7 contain “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 8 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 9 II. STATUTORY SCREENING 10 Plaintiff brings three causes of action against the SSA. (Doc. 7.) The Court 11 construes his first claim as an appeal from the SSA’s denial of his disability benefits. (Id. 12 at 1-2.) The Court has determined that Plaintiff states a claim for an appeal from the SSA’s 13 denial of his disability benefits. 14 Plaintiffs second claim is for “intentional infliction of emotional distress/attempted 15 murder.” (Id. at 2.) To proceed with a tort claim against the United States, Plaintiff must 16 meet two requirements under the Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”): “(1) file a claim 17 with the appropriate federal agency within two years of the claim’s accrual; and (2) file 18 suit within six months of the administrative denial of the claim.” Cook v. Social. Sec. 19 Admin., No. C 06-1965 RS, 2008 WL 5211242, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008) (citing 28 20 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484, 485 (9th Cir. 1984)). Under 21 the FTCA, Plaintiff must exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a tort claim 22 against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If the claim is not presented before 23 commencing suit in federal court, it must be dismissed. Id. at *2 (citing McNeil v. United 24 States, 508 U.S. 106, 111 (1993)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he exhausted his 25 administrative remedies under the FTCA before bringing his tort claim. Further, Plaintiff 26 has failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claim for “intentional infliction of emotion 27 distress/attempted murder.” Considering the nature of the action, the Court believes any 28 attempt to amend the claim is futile because it determines that this claim could not be cured 1 by the allegation of other facts. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Simply put, the Court cannot 2 see how the denial of Plaintiff’s disability benefits resulted in intentional infliction of 3 emotional distress or attempted murder. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim for 4 intentional infliction of emotional distress/attempted murder with prejudice. 5 Plaintiff’s third claim is for “improper and invalid jurisdiction over a person.” (Id. 6 at 2.) However, the Court is not aware of a jurisdiction that authorizes such a claim. 7 Therefore, this claim is dismissed with prejudice. 8 The Court determines that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim against the SSA. 9 However, Plaintiff has again improperly listed ALJ Jones as a Defendant in this action. 10 The Supreme Court has acknowledged that ALJ’s are afforded absolute immunity, ruling 11 “[t]here can be little doubt that the role of the modern federal hearing examiner or 12 administrative law judge…is ‘functionally comparable’ to that of a judge.” Butz v. 13 Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513-14 (1978) (“We therefore hold that persons subject to these 14 restraints and performing adjudicatory functions within a federal agency are entitled to 15 absolute immunity from damages liability for their judicial acts.”); see also Cleavinger v. 16 Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985). Therefore, ALJ Jones cannot be sued for liability arising 17 from her judicial acts. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss ALJ Jones as a Defendant in 18 this matter with prejudice. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is approved 22 in part and dismissed in part. Plaintiff’s claims for “intentional infliction of emotional 23 distress/attempted murder” and “improper and invalid jurisdiction over a person” are 24 dismissed with prejudice. All claims against ALJ Jones are dismissed with prejudice, and 25 ALJ Jones is dismissed as a Defendant in this matter with prejudice. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue a Summons and 27 provide it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 and certified copies of the 28 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and this Order. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete the U.S. Marshal Form || 285 and return it along with the Summons and the Court-provided copies of the First Amended Complaint and this Order to the Clerk of Court. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First || Amended Complaint and Summons on Defendant as designated by Plaintiff on the completed U.S. Marshal Form 285. 8 Dated this 4th day of February, 2021. 9 10 = TL

ned States District Mudge, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marcus Don Powell, No. CV-21-00054-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Marcus Don Powell’s First Amended 16 Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff originally brought this case pro se on January 12, 17 2021 against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and against Administrative Law 18 Judge (“ALJ”) Rebecca Jones. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis on January 15, 2021. The Court has screened Plaintiff’s FAC pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and approves in part and dismisses in part Plaintiff’s claims 21 against the SSA. Plaintiff’s claims against ALJ Jones are dismissed with prejudice. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 When a party proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires the Court 24 to screen lawsuits and dismiss them sue sponte if it determines “the action or appeal…fails 25 to state a claim on which relief may be granted...” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 26 (9th Cir. 2000). To adequately state a claim, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure requires a complaint contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for 28 the court’s jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 1 is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 8(a)(3). While detailed factual allegations are not required, “Threadbare recitals of 3 the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint “must contain sufficient factual 5 matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, a complaint should 7 contain “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 8 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 9 II. STATUTORY SCREENING 10 Plaintiff brings three causes of action against the SSA. (Doc. 7.) The Court 11 construes his first claim as an appeal from the SSA’s denial of his disability benefits. (Id. 12 at 1-2.) The Court has determined that Plaintiff states a claim for an appeal from the SSA’s 13 denial of his disability benefits. 14 Plaintiffs second claim is for “intentional infliction of emotional distress/attempted 15 murder.” (Id. at 2.) To proceed with a tort claim against the United States, Plaintiff must 16 meet two requirements under the Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”): “(1) file a claim 17 with the appropriate federal agency within two years of the claim’s accrual; and (2) file 18 suit within six months of the administrative denial of the claim.” Cook v. Social. Sec. 19 Admin., No. C 06-1965 RS, 2008 WL 5211242, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008) (citing 28 20 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484, 485 (9th Cir. 1984)). Under 21 the FTCA, Plaintiff must exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a tort claim 22 against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If the claim is not presented before 23 commencing suit in federal court, it must be dismissed. Id. at *2 (citing McNeil v. United 24 States, 508 U.S. 106, 111 (1993)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he exhausted his 25 administrative remedies under the FTCA before bringing his tort claim. Further, Plaintiff 26 has failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claim for “intentional infliction of emotion 27 distress/attempted murder.” Considering the nature of the action, the Court believes any 28 attempt to amend the claim is futile because it determines that this claim could not be cured 1 by the allegation of other facts. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Simply put, the Court cannot 2 see how the denial of Plaintiff’s disability benefits resulted in intentional infliction of 3 emotional distress or attempted murder. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim for 4 intentional infliction of emotional distress/attempted murder with prejudice. 5 Plaintiff’s third claim is for “improper and invalid jurisdiction over a person.” (Id. 6 at 2.) However, the Court is not aware of a jurisdiction that authorizes such a claim. 7 Therefore, this claim is dismissed with prejudice. 8 The Court determines that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim against the SSA. 9 However, Plaintiff has again improperly listed ALJ Jones as a Defendant in this action. 10 The Supreme Court has acknowledged that ALJ’s are afforded absolute immunity, ruling 11 “[t]here can be little doubt that the role of the modern federal hearing examiner or 12 administrative law judge…is ‘functionally comparable’ to that of a judge.” Butz v. 13 Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513-14 (1978) (“We therefore hold that persons subject to these 14 restraints and performing adjudicatory functions within a federal agency are entitled to 15 absolute immunity from damages liability for their judicial acts.”); see also Cleavinger v. 16 Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985). Therefore, ALJ Jones cannot be sued for liability arising 17 from her judicial acts. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss ALJ Jones as a Defendant in 18 this matter with prejudice. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is approved 22 in part and dismissed in part. Plaintiff’s claims for “intentional infliction of emotional 23 distress/attempted murder” and “improper and invalid jurisdiction over a person” are 24 dismissed with prejudice. All claims against ALJ Jones are dismissed with prejudice, and 25 ALJ Jones is dismissed as a Defendant in this matter with prejudice. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue a Summons and 27 provide it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 and certified copies of the 28 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and this Order. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete the U.S. Marshal Form || 285 and return it along with the Summons and the Court-provided copies of the First Amended Complaint and this Order to the Clerk of Court. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First || Amended Complaint and Summons on Defendant as designated by Plaintiff on the completed U.S. Marshal Form 285. 8 Dated this 4th day of February, 2021. 9 10 = TL

ned States District Mudge, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack