Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01761/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01761-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Phil Campbell seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review of 

the administrative decision denying his application for Social Security benefits. Pending before the 

Court are the complaint and his request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the 

Court finds service of the complaint is appropriate. 

I. Proceeding in forma pauperis

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] 

that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court 

reviewed the motion and the supplemental information, and finds Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

///

PHIL CAMPBELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01761 – JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE 

DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF THE 

COMPLAINT

Case 1:15-cv-01761-JLT Document 8 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Screening Requirement

When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim 

is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or 

not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 

25, 32-33 (1992). 

III. Pleading Standards

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 

pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may 

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and 

succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The 

purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds 

upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The 

Supreme Court noted,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers 

labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 

factual enhancement.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague 

and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when 

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The 

plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than 

a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint 

Case 1:15-cv-01761-JLT Document 8 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of 

the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 

assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal 

conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a 

complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

IV. Discussion and Analysis 

Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability 

benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in 

relevant part:

Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to 

which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of 

such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of 

such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. Such action 

shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in 

which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business . . . The court shall 

have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment 

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, 

with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 

Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 

reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council denied his request for review of the decision on 

September 18, 2015, at which time the decision of the administrative law judge became the decision of 

the Commissioner. (Doc. 1 at 2) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for review would be due within sixty 

five days of the date of Appeal’s Council’s notice, or no later than November 22, 2015. See 42 U.S.C. 

§405(g) (noting a claimant is “presumed” to have received the notice of denial within “5 days after the 

date of such notice”). Because Plaintiff initiated this action November 19, 2015, his request for judicial 

review is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01761-JLT Document 8 Filed 12/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision denying 

Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue summons as to the defendant, Carolyn 

Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue and serve Plaintiff with Social Security Case 

Documents, including the Scheduling Order, Order regarding Consent, the Consent

Form, and USM-285 Forms; and

4. The U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the complaint, summons, and this 

order upon the defendant as directed by Plaintiff in the USM Forms.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01761-JLT Document 8 Filed 12/29/15 Page 4 of 4