1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Daphne L. Smith, Case No. 2:24-cv-00278-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 Martin O’ Malley,
8 Defendant.
9 10 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Daphne L Smith’s s application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on February 2, 2024. 12 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 13 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United 14 States must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s 15 failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 Ms. Smith has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an 18 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 19 request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 20 The Court will next screen Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-1. 21 II. Screening the Complaint 22 A. Standard of Review 23 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable 25 claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may 26
27 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. 1 be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(e)(2). 3 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 4 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 5 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 6 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 7 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 8 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 9 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 10 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 11 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 13 insufficient. Id. 14 If a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration, 15 before filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. 16 § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) 17 (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been 18 party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the 19 claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for disability benefits, the claimant 20 may request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied at the reconsideration level, a 21 claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If the ALJ denies the claim, a 22 claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council 23 declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then request judicial review. See generally 24 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 25 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, she may obtain judicial review of 26 a SSA decision denying benefits by filing suit within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Id. 27 An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought “in the district court 1 should state the nature of plaintiff’s disability, when plaintiff claims she became disabled, and 2 when and how she exhausted her administrative remedies. The complaint should also contain a 3 plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of plaintiff’s disagreement with the 4 determination made by the SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. 5 A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted 6 her administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the 7 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is 8 substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and (b) 9 whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security 10 Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 11 B. Analysis 12 Here, Ms. Smith alleges that Plaintiff’s applications for supplemental security income was 13 denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) following a 14 hearing. ECF No. 1-1 at 1-3. Plaintiff further alleges that on December 19, 2023, the Appeals 15 Council denied the request for review, and, at that time, the ALJ’s decision became the 16 Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 3-4 Plaintiff filed this action on February 8, 2024, which is 17 within the allowable period. Thus, it appears that Ms. Smith has exhausted the administrative 18 remedies and timely commenced this action. 19 The complaint also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the District of Nevada and the 20 nature of her disability. Id. at 1, 2. 21 Finally, the complaint includes sufficient facts to state a claim for relief, alleging that the 22 ALJ’s decision erred in several respects. Id. at 3. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 25 1. Plaintiff Daphne Smith’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 26 is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee of $402.00. 27 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the 1 || necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or giving security for them. This Order 2 || granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at 3 || government expense. 4 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Daphne L. Smith, Case No. 2:24-cv-00278-BNW
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 Martin O’ Malley,
8 Defendant.
9 10 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Daphne L Smith’s s application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on February 2, 2024. 12 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 13 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United 14 States must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s 15 failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 Ms. Smith has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an 18 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 19 request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 20 The Court will next screen Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-1. 21 II. Screening the Complaint 22 A. Standard of Review 23 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable 25 claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may 26
27 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. 1 be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(e)(2). 3 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 4 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 5 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 6 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 7 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 8 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 9 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 10 (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 11 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 13 insufficient. Id. 14 If a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration, 15 before filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. 16 § 405(g); see also Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) 17 (“Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been 18 party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the 19 claim”). Generally, if the SSA denies a claimant’s application for disability benefits, the claimant 20 may request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied at the reconsideration level, a 21 claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If the ALJ denies the claim, a 22 claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council 23 declines to review the ALJ’s decision, a claimant may then request judicial review. See generally 24 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. 25 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, she may obtain judicial review of 26 a SSA decision denying benefits by filing suit within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Id. 27 An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought “in the district court 1 should state the nature of plaintiff’s disability, when plaintiff claims she became disabled, and 2 when and how she exhausted her administrative remedies. The complaint should also contain a 3 plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of plaintiff’s disagreement with the 4 determination made by the SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. 5 A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted 6 her administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the 7 Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is 8 substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and (b) 9 whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security 10 Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). 11 B. Analysis 12 Here, Ms. Smith alleges that Plaintiff’s applications for supplemental security income was 13 denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) following a 14 hearing. ECF No. 1-1 at 1-3. Plaintiff further alleges that on December 19, 2023, the Appeals 15 Council denied the request for review, and, at that time, the ALJ’s decision became the 16 Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 3-4 Plaintiff filed this action on February 8, 2024, which is 17 within the allowable period. Thus, it appears that Ms. Smith has exhausted the administrative 18 remedies and timely commenced this action. 19 The complaint also indicates that Plaintiff resides within the District of Nevada and the 20 nature of her disability. Id. at 1, 2. 21 Finally, the complaint includes sufficient facts to state a claim for relief, alleging that the 22 ALJ’s decision erred in several respects. Id. at 3. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 25 1. Plaintiff Daphne Smith’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 26 is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee of $402.00. 27 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the 1 || necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or giving security for them. This Order 2 || granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at 3 || government expense. 4 3. The Clerk of Court must file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 5 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide notice of this action to the Commissioner 6 || pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security. 7 5. From this point forward, Plaintiff must serve on Defendant or, if 8 || appearance has been entered by an attorney, on the attorney, a copy of every pleading, motion, or 9 || other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original 10 || paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the 11 || document was personally served or sent by mail to the Defendant or counsel for the Defendant. 12 || The Court may disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not 13 || been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate Judge, or the 14 || Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. 15 DATED: February 16, 2024 Gu Le UO bao 16 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28