Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01782/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01782-2/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

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

1 07cv1782 LAB (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNIE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security

Administration,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv1782 LAB(RBB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE:

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT

On September 10, 2007, Plaintiff Annie Morris filed a

Complaint [doc. no. 1] against Defendant Michael J. Astrue. The

Complaint alleges that Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance

benefits and Supplemental Security Income because she is disabled

and no longer able to engage in gainful employment. (Compl. 1.) 

Nevertheless, Morris alleges her initial application for benefits

and her request for reconsideration were denied. (Id.) An

administrative hearing was held, and the administrative law judge

issued a decision on March 29, 2007, denying Plaintiff’s claim. 

(Id. at 2.) The administrative law judge’s denial was thereafter

upheld by the Appeals Council. (Id.) Morris contends that the

Case 3:07-cv-01782-LAB-RBB Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv1782 LAB (RBB)

“decision denying benefits was not supported by substantial

evidence and an erroneous standard of law was applied in reaching

the decision.” (Id.) Plaintiff asks this Court to reverse the

Commissioner’s determination and order the payment of benefits. 

(Id.)

I. Plaintiff’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed For Failure to Pay

the Filing Fee.

All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of

the United States must pay a filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C.A. §

1914(a) (West 2006). The Court may authorize a plaintiff to

commence a civil action without prepaying the filing fee if the

plaintiff provides an affidavit listing all assets and

demonstrating an inability to pay the fee. 28 U.S.C.A. §

1915(a)(1) (West 2006). 

Morris filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) [doc. no. 2] with her Complaint on September 10, 2007. 

District Judge Larry Alan Burn referred the case, including the IFP

motion, to this Court on September 21, 2007. (Order of Reference

[doc. no. 3] 1.) On October 3, 2007, this Court denied Plaintiff’s

IFP motion without prejudice because the application she filed was

incomplete. (See Order Denying IFP [doc. no. 4] 1-2.) Morris was

informed that if she wanted to proceed IFP, she must file a

complete IFP application by November 15, 2007. (Id. at 2.) 

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause [doc. no. 5] on March

17, 2008, because Plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s Order

by filing a renewed IFP motion or paying the filing fee. As of the

date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff still has not

Case 3:07-cv-01782-LAB-RBB Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 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

3 07cv1782 LAB (RBB)

filed a complete IFP application, responded to the Order to Show

Cause, or taken any other action in this case.

“An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees

only if the party is granted IFP status.” Rodriguez v. Cook, 169

F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Morris has not been

granted leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, her

failure to pay the fee is grounds for the Court to dismiss the

present action without prejudice. See id. at 1182; Olivares v.

Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that district

court has authority to dismiss a nonfrivolous action without

prejudice for failure to pay filing fee). The district court

should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on this basis. 

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint Should Be Dismissed for Failure to Serve

Defendant.

In addition to failing to pay the filing fee, Plaintiff has

also failed to properly serve the Defendant. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m) provides that the plaintiff must serve each

defendant with a summons and complaint within 120 days of the

complaint being filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If the plaintiff

does not effect service in that time, the Court must either dismiss

the action without prejudice or order that service be made within a

specified time. Id. The Court may extend the time for service of

process if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to effect

service. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that good

cause exists. Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir.

2007). 

If Plaintiff had been granted leave to proceed IFP in this

action, she would have been entitled to have the United States

Case 3:07-cv-01782-LAB-RBB Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 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

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\SOCSEC\MORRIS1782\R&R.wpd 4 07cv1782 LAB (RBB)

Marshal Service personally serve Defendant with the summons and

Complaint. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d) (West 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(c)(3). But because her IFP application was denied, Morris was

responsible for personally serving Defendant. Although more than

120 days have passed since the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP

application on October 3, 2007, the Court has not been provided

with proof of service showing that Defendant either waived service

under Rule 4(d) or was served in accordance with Rule 4(i). 

Accordingly, the district court should dismiss the Complaint

pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to effect service of process.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Complaint should

be dismissed without prejudice.

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United

States District Court judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before May 16, 2008. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed on or before May 30, 2008. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2008

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Burns

All parties of record

Case 3:07-cv-01782-LAB-RBB Document 6 Filed 04/30/08 Page 4 of 4