Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 17, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00927
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| CANDY M.R., Case No. 2:24-cv-00927-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. 10] MARTIN O’MALLEY, 11 Defendant(s). 12 When a party seeks permission to pursue a civil case in forma pauperis, courts screen the 13] complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In the social security context, that screening includes analysis 14] of whether the civil action was timely commenced within 60 days after notice of a final decision. 15]| See, e.g., Graves v. Colvin, 2015 WL 357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (collecting cases).! 16] Plaintiffs complaint here acknowledges that it is facially untimely, but indicates that an extension 17] request was filed below and that the extension request remains pending. See Docket No. 1-1 at § 18] 8. Given the circumstances, Plaintiff must file either an amended complaint or a status report by 19} June 17, 2024. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: May 17, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe\ 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 ' 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). 26] 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., 27} 2023 WL 35218, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2023). Although the Court declines to engage in a full screening herein in light of the timeliness issue identified above, it would appear that the complaint 28]| fails on additional grounds. See Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *2.