1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 D.A.,1 Case No. 25-cv-00143-PHK

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MANDATORY SCREENING OF COMPLAINT 10 v. PURSUANT TO

(e)(2)(B) 11 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Re: Dkt. 1 12 Defendant.

13 14 Plaintiff D.A. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 15 § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Acting Commissioner of the Social 16 Security Administration, Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin (“Commissioner”), denying Plaintiff’s 17 applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. [Dkt. 1]. The 18 Court separately has granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), in 19 accordance with

(a). [Dkt. 8]. The Court now undertakes a determination of 20 whether Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the requirements of § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory 22 review by the Court and sua sponte dismissal if the Court determines the complaint is “frivolous 23 or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief 24 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 25

26 1 In actions involving requested review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, the Court generally uses the first name and initial of last name (or just both initials) 27 of the Plaintiff in the Court’s public Orders out of an abundance of caution and out of regard for the 1 Complaints in social security cases are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Calhoun 2 v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not 3 limited to prisoners.”); see also Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS,

, 4 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012)) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 5 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). 6 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the instant Complaint does not “seek[] monetary 7 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B)(iii). First, 8 the Complaint does not seek monetary relief in the form of damages from the Commissioner, but 9 rather seeks a judgment and order reversing the Commissioner’s decision on the benefits at issue. 10 [Dkt. 1]. Second, the Commissioner is not immune from the relief requested. To the contrary, the 11 Social Security Act expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the 12 Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing on which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42

(g). 14 As in most social security cases, the substantive bulk of the § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening 15 determination focuses on whether the Complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 16 granted.”

(e)(2)(B)(ii). Determining whether a complaint satisfies this 17 requirement is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (citation omitted). 19 The context here is guided by the fact that this is a social security disability appeal brought by an 20 indigent plaintiff. “Although a complaint in a social security disability appeal may differ in some 21 ways from complaints in other civil cases, it is ‘not exempt from the general rules of civil 22 pleading.’” Lynnmarie E. v. Saul, No. 21-cv-00244-JLB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 23 28, 2021) (quoting Hoagland,

, at *2). 24 In reviewing a complaint for these purposes, “[t]he standard for determining whether a 25 plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is 26 the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” 27 Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith,

, 1 minimum pleading standard for that claim. See Conservation Force v. Salazar,

, 2 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block,

(9th Cir. 2001)) (“A motion 3 to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which 4 relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’”). 5 The requisite minimum pleading standard varies depending on the type of claim(s) at issue. 6 Iqbal,

. The currently applicable minimum pleading standard for social security 7 complaints is set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. 8 § 405(g). See Giselle N. v. Kijakazi,

, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Under 9 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1), “[t]he complaint must: (A) state that the action is brought under 10 § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation 11 provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; (C) state the name and the county of 12 residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage 13 record benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of benefits claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. 14 Sec. R. 2(b)(1). Additionally, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(2) provides that the complaint “may 15 include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 16 2(b)(2) (emphasis added). Accordingly, for purposes of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court looks to 17 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)’s requirements to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently 18 states a claim for relief. Giselle N., 694 F. Supp. 3d at 1197. 19 As discussed above, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) first requires that a social security 20 complaint “state that the action is brought under § 405(g).” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 21 2(b)(1)(A). In the instant Complaint, Plaintiff states that they are seeking review of a decision 22 regarding disability benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, and thus, 23 jurisdiction is proper under

(g). [Dkt. 1 at 1-2]. Accordingly, the Court finds that 24 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the first pleading requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 25 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) next requires that a social security complaint “identify the final 26 decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with 27 the final decision.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(B). Here, the Complaint indicates 1 Plaintiff’s applications for benefits, which became the final decision of the Commissioner for 2 purposes of judicial review on December 2, 2024. See Dkt. 1 at 2-3. The Complaint includes 3 Plaintiff’s full name, as well as the date of Plaintiff’s hearing before the ALJ, the date the 4 unfavorable decision was issued, and the date the decision was affirmed by the Appeals Council. 5

. Construed according to the proper legal standards, the Court finds that this information in 6 the Complaint suffices to satisfy the second requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 7 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) next requires that a social security complaint “state the name 8 and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed” and “name the person on 9 whose wage record benefits are claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(C). As 10 already noted, the Complaint here includes Plaintiff’s full name. The Complaint states that 11 Plaintiff resides in Alameda County, California. [Dkt. 1 at 1]. The Complaint indicates that 12 Plaintiff is the individual on whose wage record benefits are claimed.

Accordingly, the Court 13 finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the third and fourth requirements of Supplemental Rule 14 2(b)(1). 15 Finally, Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) requires that a social security complaint “state the type 16 of benefits claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(E). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint 17 identifies the type of benefits at issue as “Title II and Title XVI disability benefits.” [Dkt. 1 at 2]. 18 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the final pleading requirement of 19 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies all the 21 requirements of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) and therefore satisfies the minimum pleading 22 requirements to state a claim for relief.

(e)(2)(B)(ii). 23 For similar reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 25 Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

, 325 26 (1989)). That is, a “case is frivolous if it is ‘of little weight or importance: having no basis in law 27 or fact.’” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d at 1121. As demonstrated above, the complaint has an 1 2 Finally, the Court considers whether Plaintiff’s Complaint is “malicious.” 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915A(b)(1). A complaint is malicious “if it was filed with the ‘intention or desire to harm 4 another.’” Andrews v. King,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The 5 Complaint here has no indicia that Plaintiff has an “intention or desire to harm” Defendant through 6 this action, such as by being duplicative. Cf. Morris v. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., No. 3:16-cv- 7 00604-MMD-VPC,

, at *2 (D. Nev. July 5, 2017), report and recommendation 8 adopted,

(D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2017) (“The court notes that duplicative litigation 9 by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed as malicious under

1915(e).”). Rather, the Complaint indicates Plaintiff’s desire to obtain reversal of a ruling denying 11 them disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Based on the analysis of the 12 averments of the complaint detailed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is not 13 malicious.

(e)(2)(B)(i). 14 Accordingly, and in light of the above analysis, the Court concludes for purposes of 15 mandatory IFP screening that Plaintiff’s Complaint is not “frivolous or malicious,” does not “fail[] 16 to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” and does not “seek[] monetary relief against a 17 defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). The Court’s 18 determination is without prejudice to further determinations on the merits as this matter proceeds, 19 after the Commissioner appears and both Parties assert any further arguments, records, or other 20 matters following the proper procedures and timing requirements for this case. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case [Dkt. 1] SHALL NOT be dismissed pursuant to 28

(e)(2)(B). 25 2. In accordance with Supplemental Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security 26 Actions Under

(g), a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the 27 Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States ] See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 3 (“The court must notify the Commissioner of the 2 commencement of the action by transmitting a Notice of Electronic filing to the 3 appropriate office within the Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel 4 and to the United States Attorney for the district where the action is filed. .. . The plaintiff 5 need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil Rule 4.”). 6 3. In accordance with Supplemental Rule 4, the Commissioner shall file a certified copy of 7 the administrative record or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint within sixty (60) 8 days after notice of the action is given under Supplemental Rule 3. 9 4. The Parties are reminded to comply with the deadlines and filings required by the 10 Scheduling Order [Dkt. 5], the Local Rules, and any other Orders of the Court. Failure to 11 prosecute or defend this action may result in adverse consequences, up to and including 12 terminating sanctions.

|) IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: February 4, 2025

PETER H. KANG 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28