Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 861
Nature of Suit: Social Security - HIA (1395 ff)
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRICELDA FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00378-CDB (SS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER, AND 

CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR 

REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 6)

Plaintiff Gricelda Flores (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of an administrative decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security denying Petitioner’s claim for disability benefits under the 

Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Doc. 4). On April 2, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice as 

Plaintiff’s sworn attestation was undated. (Doc. 5). That same day, Plaintiff filed a renewed,

signed and dated motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6). 

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 assts such person...possesses 

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

Case 1:24-cv-00378-KES-CDB Document 7 Filed 04/03/24 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

Here, the Court has reviewed the financial status affidavit (Doc. 6) and finds the requirements of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.

II. Screening Requirement

When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, 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. §§ 1915(b) & (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

A complaint 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). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the 

grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 

(2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, 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.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal 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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2009). 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. Id. at 556. 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. Id. Where a complaint 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.”

Case 1:24-cv-00378-KES-CDB Document 7 Filed 04/03/24 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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 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

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

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). 

Plaintiff seeks to appeal the final administrative decision denying an application for 

benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff reports the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a request for 

review of the decision on March 18, 2024. Id. at 2. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. See 

Williamson v. Saul, No. 2:18-cv-02304 KJM CKD, 2019 WL 5721660, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 

2019). Plaintiff states she resides in Merced, California. (Doc. 1 at 2). Therefore, the Court has 

jurisdiction over this action.

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-00378-KES-CDB Document 7 Filed 04/03/24 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

V. Conclusion and Order

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

denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is 

directed to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent 

or Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00378-KES-CDB Document 7 Filed 04/03/24 Page 4 of 4