Reeves O/B/O K.M.M. v. Social Security

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

Kristina M. Reeves, Case No. 2:24-cv-00202-BNW

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Martin O’ Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Presently before the Court is plaintiff Kristina Reeve’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on January 29, 2024 I. In Forma Pauperis Application All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Ms. Reeves has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. The Court will next screen Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-1. /// /// /// /// II. Screening the Complaint A. Standard of Review Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. If a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration, before filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for disability benefits, the claimant may request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied at the reconsideration level, a

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 28 U.S.C. claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then request judicial review. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, she may obtain judicial review of a SSA decision denying benefits by filing suit within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Id. An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought “in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” Id. The complaint should state the nature of plaintiff’s disability, when plaintiff claims she became disabled, and when and how she exhausted her administrative remedies. The complaint should also contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and (b) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). B. Analysis Here, Ms. Reeves alleges her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income were denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) following a hearing. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that on September 26, 2023, the Appeals Council denied the request for review, and, at that time, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. Thus, she has exhausted administrative remedies. Plaintiff has filed requests for extensions to file this action but no decision has been rendered. At this juncture, she believes her requests for extension will be granted. Thus, for screening purposes only, this Court will assume the requests for extensions will be granted and that filing this complaint on January 29, 2024, is within the allowable period. The complaint also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the District of Nevada and the nature of her disability.2 Id. at 1, 3. Finally, the complaint includes sufficient facts to state a claim for relief, alleging that the “ALJ’ erred in rendering a decision that was not supported by substantial evidence”. Id. at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff Kristina M. Reeves’ request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee of $402.00. 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or giving security for them. This Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at the government’s expense. 3. The Clerk of Court must file the Complaint. 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide notice of this action to the Commissioner pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security. 5. From this point forward, Plaintiff must serve on Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by an attorney, on the attorney, a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was personally served or sent by mail to the Defendant or counsel for the Defendant. The Court may disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not 2 The Court is aware of district courts in the Ninth Circuit that require a plaintiff who proceeds in forma pauperis on social security appeals to include the onset date of her alleged disability in the complaint. See, e.g., Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016). While the Court believes that it is best practice to include this information and advises Plaintiff’s counsel to do so when filing future complaints, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate Judge, or the Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. DATED: February 7, 2024 .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]