1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Joseph C., Case No. 2:25-cv-01688-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER and REPORT AND 6 v. RECOMMNEDATION

7 The current commissioner of S.S.,

8 Defendant.

9 10 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 11 Presently before this Court are pro se Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma 12 pauperis. ECF Nos. 8, 11. Plaintiff has submitted the declaration required by

(a) 13 showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 14 request to proceed in forma pauperis at ECF No. 8 will be granted. His duplicate request at ECF 15 No. 11 is denied as moot. 16 II. Screening the Complaint 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 18 under

(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable 19 claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may 20 be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard 22 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668

(9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 25 v. Iqbal,

(2009). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 26 claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 27 the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,

, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 1 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 2 Twombly,

(2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 3 insufficient.

Unless it is clear that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through 4 amendment, a plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the 5 complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995). 6 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth the basis upon which he wishes to appeal the 7 decision of the commissioner. See ECF No. 1-1. Instead, the complaint alludes to a previous case 8 he filed and cites to exhibits without context. Accordingly, this Court cannot determine if Plaintiff 9 stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court will, therefore, recommend that 10 Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his 11 complaint, the amended complaint must include the basis upon which Plaintiff believes the 12 administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred. In addition, the amended complaint will be due no later 13 than November 20, 2025. 14 III. Miscellaneous motions 15 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) and a motion to 16 submit evidence (ECF No. 12). The motion for summary judgment is premature as the Court must 17 first screen his complaint and determine whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can 18 be granted. As a result, this Court recommends that it be denied without prejudice. The motion to 19 submit evidence (ECF No. 12) is also denied as the court will have the entire record available for 20 review to determine what evidence supports Plaintiff’s claims. 21 In summary, the first step is for Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint which clearly 22 explains the reason why he believes the ALJ made a mistake. Once he has done that, the Court 23 will provide a schedule and deadlines for the parties to file motions for summary judgment. The 24 evidence supporting the arguments made by the parties will derive from the record below. 25 IV. Conclusion 26 IT IS ORDERED that: 27 1. This Court’s order at ECF No. 14 is VACATED as a district judge has been assigned to ] 2. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff 2 || will not be required to pay the filing fee. 3 3. His duplicate request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as moot. 4 4. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of 5 || prepayment of any additional fees or costs or giving security for them. This Order granting leave 6 || to proceed in forma pauperis does not extend to the issuance of subpoenas at government 7 || expense. 8 5. The Clerk of Court need not detach and file the complaint as it was already docketed at 9 || ECF No. 15. 10 6. Plaintiff's motion to submit evidence (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 11 |) ITIS RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If 13 || Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must do so by November 20, 2025. Failure to 14 || comply will result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 15 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No 10) be DENIED as premature. 16 NOTICE 17 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned 18 || to this case under

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation 19 || may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being 20 || served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely 21 || objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

, 22 || 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 DATED: October 24, 2025 25 26 BRENDA WEKSLER 57 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28