Reddic v. Social Security Administration

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * Gwendolyn Renee Reddic, Case No. 2:23-cv-01182-BNW 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. Social Security Administration, et al., 8 Defendant.

10 Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5).

12 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 13 Plaintiff submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

16 II. Screening the Complaint 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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 23 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) 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. Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

6 If a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), 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 claimant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). 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.

17 Once a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, he 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 he became disabled, and when and how he exhausted his 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 Social Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief. A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted his 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 || whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security || Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).

3 Here, Plaintiff does not make clear what the nature of her complaint is. She alleges that || she has not been paid the correct amount but does not explain whether this is due to a legally || erroneous determination and, if so, what the nature of the error is. As a result, this Court will || dismiss the complaint without prejudice so that Plaintiff can clarify what is the review she seeks.

7 || As explained above, to the extent she is claiming the ALJ erred, she must first show that she has || exhausted administrative remedies.

9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) 1s || GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee of $402.00.

12 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.

16 3. The Clerk of Court is instructed to detach and file the Complaint (ECF No. || 1-1).

18 4. If Plaintiff chooses to amend her complaint, she must do so before January || 9, 2024. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be || dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original || complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended || complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other || documents. The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff's || amended complaint complete.

IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 10:07 am, December 08, 2023 27 Ex, Le WO Fao 28 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG