Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00213/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00213-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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 

KIRKLAND SWAFFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIGNA Group Insurance,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00213-DAD-MJS

ORDER FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM 

(ECF NO. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

 

Plaintiff Kirkland Swafford (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this complaint against 

defendant CIGNA Group Insurance (“Defendant”) for denial of disability benefits. His 

complaint is before the Court for screening. 

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the 

complaint to determine if it states a cognizable claim. The Court must dismiss a 

complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are 

legally "frivolous or malicious," "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. 

Case 1:14-cv-00213-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 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

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have 

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . 

the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. PLEADING STANDARD

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is or was employed by Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., which maintains 

disability insurance through Defendant. Plaintiff received disability benefits through 

Defendant for an unspecified period. On March 22, 2012, Defendant notified Plaintiff that 

he no longer met the definition of disability stated in the policy, and his claim was closed. 

Plaintiff submitted documentation to Defendant for review but received another letter, 

postmarked May 4, 2012, again denying his claim. 

Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s determination. He contends that Defendant 

reviewed the opinion of only one doctor, but Plaintiff is seeing multiple doctors. He asks 

that the Court evaluate his claim and determine whether he should remain on disability.

IV. ANALYSIS

The plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, always bears 

the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for 

Case 1:14-cv-00213-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 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

Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the basis for federal 

jurisdiction is not entirely clear. However, it appears that the disability policy at issue 

likely is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). ERISA 

applies broadly to any employee benefit plan established or maintained by an employer 

engaged in or representing employees engaged in commerce, with delineated 

exceptions for plans that fall outside of the statute's regulatory and preemptive authority.

29 U.S.C. § 1003. In light of Plaintiff’s allegation that his disability plan was provided by 

his employer, the Court will assume for the purposes of screening that ERISA applies.

Based on this assumption, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

claim. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207-08 (2004). 

ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme is contained in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Under this 

provision a plan participant or beneficiary may sue to recover benefits due under the 

plan, to enforce the participant's rights under the plan, or to clarify rights to future 

benefits. Here, Plaintiff has set forth the basic elements of an ERISA claim. He is a 

participant in or beneficiary of a plan that appears to be covered by ERISA. Although he 

initially was provided benefits under the plan, those benefits ceased when the plan 

administrator determined that he no longer met the definition of disability under the plan. 

He seeks a determination by the Court regarding his eligibility for benefits. Such claims 

are routinely cognizable under ERISA. E.g., Hamma v. Intel Corp., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1144 

(E.D. Cal. 2009); Finley v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for N. Cal., No. 2:13-cv-1132-

GEB-EFB PS, 2016 WL 1060169 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016), adopted in full, 2016 WL 

1452046 (E.D. Cal. April 13, 2016). 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a cognizable ERISA claim against Defendant. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service shall be initiated on the following Defendant:

CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE

Case 1:14-cv-00213-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 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

4

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one 

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet 

and a copy of the complaint filed February 18, 2014;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete 

and return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with 

the following documents:

a. One completed summons for the Defendant listed above,

b. One completed USM-285 form for the Defendant listed above,

c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed complaint filed February 18, 2014; 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendant and need not request 

waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the 

Court shall direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named 

Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend 

dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00213-DAD-MJS Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 4