Cicala v. The Commissioner of Social Security

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * JOSEPH C., Case No. 2:24-cv-0821-BNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant.

13 Presently before the Court is pro se plaintiff ’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on April 29, 2024. Plaintiff filed a duplicate application at ECF No.2, which will be denied as moot.

16 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 17 Plaintiff has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. The Court will next screen the complaint.

20 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 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 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. be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3 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 5 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) (citation omitted). Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 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 that 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).

16 Even following the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal, the Court has an “obligation . . . where the petitioner is pro se . . . to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). But “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989); see also Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)) (noting that a liberal construction may not be used to supply an essential element of the claim absent from the complaint).

24 In the context of social security appeals, if a plaintiff’s complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. 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 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.

7 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 SSA and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.

15 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 substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner, and (b) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).

21 B. Analysis 22 This Court notes that plaintiff has filed multiple complaints filed. The rules require that all of plaintiff’s claims be contained in one complaint. Courts cannot refer to multiple complaints and piece together the different arguments that are being presented. As a result, this Court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and allow him to amend his complaint.

26 As explained above, plaintiff is reminded that the judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is substantial evidence in the standards were applied. As such, plaintiff should keep that in mind when presenting his arguments.

3 Plaintiff is also advised that if he chooses to file an amended complaint, the original complaint(s) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, if he files an amended complaint, each claim must be alleged sufficiently. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading or to other documents to make his amended complaint complete. The amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or to other documents.

8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee of $405.00.

11 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 government expense.

15 3. the deadline to file an amended complaint is June 3, 2024. Failure to so may result in this action being dismissed.

17 4. The Clerk of Court must file one of the complaints (ECF No. 1-1).

18 5. The Clerk of Court shall provide notice of this action to the Commissioner pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security.

20 6. From this point forward, Plaintiff must serve on Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by an attorney, on the attorney, a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was personally served or sent by mail to Defendant or counsel for Defendant. The Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service.

1 DATED: May 2, 2024 2 ZB pnw la We Ee, □ ENDA WEKSLER 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE