10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12 * * *
13 JAMILA AHMED SENNAIN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01869-BNW
14 Plaintiff, ORDER 15 v.
16 ANDREW M. SAUL,
17 Defendant.
18 19 Pro se plaintiff Jamila Ahmed Sennain seeks judicial review of an administrative decision 20 denying her application for Social Security benefits. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. ECF 22 No. 5. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7), 23 which the Court held could proceed but first required redactions of Plaintiff’s personal data- 24 identifiers, including her full Social Security number and home address. ECF No. 8. On March 5, 25 2021, Plaintiff timely filed a redacted First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), which is now 26 before the Court for screening. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will allow Ms. Sennain 27 to proceed with this case. 1 I. Screening the Complaint 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Complaints filed by any plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to a mandatory 4 screening by the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 5 2000). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that 6 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 7 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 8 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 9 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 10 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 11 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 12 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 13 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 14 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 15 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 16 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 18 insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through 19 amendment, a plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the 20 complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Even following the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal, the Court has 22 an “obligation . . . where the petitioner is pro se . . . to construe the pleadings liberally and to 23 afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 24 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). But “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies 25 only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989); see 26 also Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v.
27 1 Although § 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 1 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)) (noting that a liberal construction may not 2 be used to supply an essential element of the claim absent from the complaint). 3 In the context of Social Security appeals, if a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision 4 by the Social Security Administration, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before 5 filing a lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 6 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only 7 after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has 8 made a final decision on the claim.”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for 9 disability benefits, the claimant may request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied 10 at the reconsideration level, a claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. 11 If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals 12 Council. If the Appeals Council declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then 13 request judicial review. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 14 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, she may obtain judicial review of 15 a SSA decision denying benefits by filing suit within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Id. 16 An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought “in the district court 17 of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” Id. The complaint 18 should state the nature of plaintiff’s disability, when plaintiff claims she became disabled, and 19 when and how she exhausted her administrative remedies. The complaint should also contain a 20 plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of plaintiff’s disagreement with the 21 determination made by the SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. 22 A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted 23 her administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the 24 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is 25 substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and (b) 26 whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security 27 Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 B. Analysis 2 Here, Ms. Sennain alleges in her amended complaint that Plaintiff’s application for 3 supplemental security income was denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by the 4 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) following a hearing. ECF No. 11 at 1, 6. Plaintiff further 5 alleges that on August 28, 2020, the Appeals Council denied the request for review, and, at that 6 time, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 1, 42. Plaintiff 7 originally filed this action on October 7, 2020, which is within the allowable period. ECF No. 1-1. 8 Thus, it appears that Ms.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12 * * *
13 JAMILA AHMED SENNAIN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01869-BNW
14 Plaintiff, ORDER 15 v.
16 ANDREW M. SAUL,
17 Defendant.
18 19 Pro se plaintiff Jamila Ahmed Sennain seeks judicial review of an administrative decision 20 denying her application for Social Security benefits. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. ECF 22 No. 5. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7), 23 which the Court held could proceed but first required redactions of Plaintiff’s personal data- 24 identifiers, including her full Social Security number and home address. ECF No. 8. On March 5, 25 2021, Plaintiff timely filed a redacted First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), which is now 26 before the Court for screening. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will allow Ms. Sennain 27 to proceed with this case. 1 I. Screening the Complaint 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Complaints filed by any plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to a mandatory 4 screening by the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 5 2000). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that 6 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 7 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 8 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 9 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 10 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 11 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 12 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 13 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 14 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 15 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 16 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 18 insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through 19 amendment, a plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the 20 complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Even following the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal, the Court has 22 an “obligation . . . where the petitioner is pro se . . . to construe the pleadings liberally and to 23 afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 24 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). But “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies 25 only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989); see 26 also Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v.
27 1 Although § 1915 largely concerns prisoner litigation, § 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 1 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)) (noting that a liberal construction may not 2 be used to supply an essential element of the claim absent from the complaint). 3 In the context of Social Security appeals, if a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision 4 by the Social Security Administration, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before 5 filing a lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 6 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only 7 after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has 8 made a final decision on the claim.”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for 9 disability benefits, the claimant may request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied 10 at the reconsideration level, a claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. 11 If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals 12 Council. If the Appeals Council declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then 13 request judicial review. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 14 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, she may obtain judicial review of 15 a SSA decision denying benefits by filing suit within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Id. 16 An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought “in the district court 17 of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” Id. The complaint 18 should state the nature of plaintiff’s disability, when plaintiff claims she became disabled, and 19 when and how she exhausted her administrative remedies. The complaint should also contain a 20 plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of plaintiff’s disagreement with the 21 determination made by the SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. 22 A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted 23 her administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the 24 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is 25 substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and (b) 26 whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security 27 Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 B. Analysis 2 Here, Ms. Sennain alleges in her amended complaint that Plaintiff’s application for 3 supplemental security income was denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by the 4 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) following a hearing. ECF No. 11 at 1, 6. Plaintiff further 5 alleges that on August 28, 2020, the Appeals Council denied the request for review, and, at that 6 time, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 1, 42. Plaintiff 7 originally filed this action on October 7, 2020, which is within the allowable period. ECF No. 1-1. 8 Thus, it appears that Ms. Sennain has exhausted the administrative remedies and timely 9 commenced this action. 10 Additionally, the amended complaint indicates the nature of Ms. Sennain’s disability and 11 its alleged onset date. ECF No. 11 at 2, 6, 8. It also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the 12 District of Nevada. Id. at 49. 13 Finally, liberally construing the amended complaint, it includes sufficient facts to state a 14 claim for relief, alleging that the ALJ’s decision relied on “incomplete information,” including 15 not finding Plaintiff’s alleged diagnosis of hypereosinophilic syndrome to be severe at step two of 16 the five-step sequential evaluation. Id. at 1–2. 17 Accordingly, Plaintiff appears to state a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 19 1. The Clerk of Court must serve the Commissioner of the Social Security 20 Administration by sending a copy of the summons and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) 21 by certified mail to: (1) Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX, Social Security 22 Administration, 160 Spear St., Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94105-1545; and (2) the 23 Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 24 Washington, D.C. 20530. 25 2. The Clerk of Court must issue summons to the United States Attorney for 26 the District of Nevada and deliver the summons and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) to 27 the U.S. Marshal for service. 1 || appearance has been entered by an attorney, on the attorney, a copy of every pleading, motion, or 2 || other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original 3 || paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the 4 || document was personally served or sent by mail to Defendant or counsel for Defendant. The 5 || Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been 6 || filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk that 7 || fails to include a certificate of service. 8 DATED: April 23, 2021 9 xg la 10 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28