Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01840/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01840-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laurie L. Dau, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 13-1840-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Proceed

In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed on September 6, 2013. (Docs. 1-2)

While Plaintiff is represented by counsel, there is no known authority that precludes

a plaintiff from obtaining in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status if the plaintiff is represented by

counsel provided, of course, the plaintiff qualifies for such status. To hold otherwise would

punish a plaintiff unable to pay the required fees for obtaining the assistance of counsel. 

I. In Forma Pauperis Status 

Every party “instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding” in a federal district court

must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A plaintiff, however, may be relieved of the

filing-fee obligation if granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

The determination of whether a plaintiff is indigent and therefore unable to pay the

filing fee falls within the district court’s sound discretion. California Men’s Colony v.

Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194

Case 2:13-cv-01840-MEA Document 5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

(1993). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to be granted IFP status.

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948); Hale-Fiedler v.

Astrue, 2012 WL 124834, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012). To satisfy the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot

because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide himself

and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. 

Based on the verified information submitted to the Court, Plaintiff qualifies for IFP

status, but the Court will not grant her Motion to Proceed without prepaying fees and costs

at this time until she files an amended complaint as directed in this Order. 

II. Screening

Upon review of the Complaint, the Court notes Plaintiff does not specify the issue or

issues she is appealing to the District Court of Arizona as a result an adverse ruling at the

administrative level on her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) As explained

below, a Social Security claimant may not appeal a denial of benefits simply because she lost

without clearly setting forth the reason(s) why the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) or

Appeals Council’s decisions were erroneous and stating a plausible claim for relief. 

In cases in which a plaintiff is requesting in forma pauperis status, a district court is

required to screen cases and must dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the

allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, the complaint

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the complaint seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Screening IFP

complaints seeking judicial review of Social Security rulings is also required by § 1915(e)(2).

Rhett v. New Jersey State Sup. Ct., 260 Fed. Appx. 513 (3rd Cir. 2008); Wheeler v. Social

Sec. Admin., 2010 WL 3784891 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Robinson v. Social Sec. Admin.,

2010 WL 2772626 (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2010). 

A complaint must provide, among others, “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Rule 8(a)(2), Fed.R. Civ.P., which means, in

the context of a Social Security appeal, identifying the legal errors made by the ALJ and any

Case 2:13-cv-01840-MEA Document 5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

decision made by the ALJ without the support of substantial evidence. See Duryea v. Social

Sec. Admin., 2012 WL 1983344, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2012) (citing Hinton v. Social Sec.

Admin., 2011 WL 3489663, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 9, 2011); Pizarro v. Social Sec. Admin.,

2008 WL 220320, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2008)). “[A] short and plain statement” must

allege the errors the ALJ purportedly made. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges conclusory claims that “[t]he findings of the

Administrative Law Judge err in law and in fact, and that Plaintiff cannot perform substantial

gainful activity and is disabled according to the criteria of the Social Security Act.” (Doc. 1,

¶ III at 2) The Complaint requests, inter alia, that “the Administrative Law Judge be

reviewed, reversed, and set aside; that Defendant be ordered to grant said claims of Plaintiff

for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and for supplemental security

income[.]” (Id. at 2) The Complaint does not identify with specificity the legal error(s)

purportedly made by the ALJ or why the decision made by the ALJ was without the support

of substantial evidence. Clearly, the Complaint fails to give the Commissioner fair notice of

the alleged error or errors the ALJ and Appeals Council committed and, therefore, it fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Rule 8(a)(2), Fed.R. Civ.P.; 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2).

III. Role of District Court

Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is the federal statute governing judicial review of any final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Schweiker v. Chilicky,

487 U.S. 412, 424 (1988). “The Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits may be set aside

only when the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or not supported by substantial

evidence in the record. If the evidence can support either outcome, the Commissioner’s

decision must be upheld.” Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003)

(citationomitted); Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam);

Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 

“District courts have a limited scope of judicial review for disability claims after a

decision by the Commissioner to deny benefits under the Act.” Kimzey v. Commissioner of

Case 2:13-cv-01840-MEA Document 5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Social Sec., 2011 WL 1230818, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011). The sole function of a

district court in a Social Security appeal is to determine whether the decision of the

Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards

were applied. Clark v. Apfel, 98 F.Supp.2d 1182 (D. Or. 2000); Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703

F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla,

but less than a preponderance; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)

(citations omitted); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 1998). The ALJ is

responsible for resolving conflicts, determining credibility, and resolving ambiguities.

Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). If sufficient evidence supports the

ALJ’s determination, a district court cannot substitute its own determination. Young v.

Sullivan, 911 F.2d 180, 184 (9th Cir. 1990). A district court must uphold the Commissioner’s

determination that a claimant is not disabled if the Commissioner applied the proper legal

standard and there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision.

Hoffman v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1986). 

IV. Discussion

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible claim that entitles

her to relief because it fails to provide how the ALJ erred and the reasoning that, if proven,

would entitle Plaintiff to relief in this District Court. The Court will not dismiss this action

at this time, but rather, will order Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to specify the plausible

legal error(s) made by the ALJ, in accordance with Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. See Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Plaintiff

is forewarned that if she fails to comply with this Order, her appeal will be dismissed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that on or before Friday, September 20, 2013, Plaintiff must file

an Amended Complaint, setting forth the alleged legal errors made by the ALJ and the

reasoning for such legal or factual errors in accordance with this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, must

Case 2:13-cv-01840-MEA Document 5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona, especially LRCiv 16.1 regarding the required procedure in Social

Security cases in this District Court. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the

District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

Dated this 9th day of September, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01840-MEA Document 5 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 5