Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02119/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 10cv2119 BTM(WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAYNA MCSWEENEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2119 BTM(WMc)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

On October 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP Motion”), and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons

discussed below, the IFP Motion is granted, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend,

and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Upon review of Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of her IFP Motion, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fees required to prosecute

this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is GRANTED. 

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-02119-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 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

2 10cv2119 BTM(WMc)

II. Failure to State a Claim

Although the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed IFP, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an IFP

case whenever the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Commissioner of Social Security was

negligent in denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits. Plaintiff indicates that she does not

believe that she is required to seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision as

opposed to just suing the Commissioner for damages. 

Plaintiff is incorrect. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) provides:

The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding

upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or

decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or

governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United

States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought

under section 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this

subchapter.

(emphasis added). Accordingly, claims that the Commissioner negligently evaluated medical

evidence and wrongly concluded that a claimant was not disabled are barred. Hooker v. U.S.

Dept. of Health and Human Serv.s, 858 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1988). “Congress envisioned

‘just this type of claim’ . . . in creating an administrative remedial scheme by which an

aggrieved person may contest the termination of benefits.” Id.

In other words, if a claimant disagrees with the decision of the Appeals Council to

deny a request for review, the claimant may obtain judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). The claimant cannot sue for tort damages on the theory that she was wrongfully

denied benefits.

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, the Court

dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, if Plaintiff wishes to seek judicial review of the

Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff may file an amended

Complaint on or before November 22, 2010. 

Case 3:10-cv-02119-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 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

3 10cv2119 BTM(WMc)

III. Appointment of Counsel

There is no right to counsel in civil cases, and district courts may appoint counsel only

under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘likelihood of success

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must

be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 

At this point in time, the Court cannot say that there is any likelihood of success on

the merits. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint on or before November 22, 2010. If Plaintiff

fails to do so, the Court shall close this case. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

is DENIED without prejudice. In addition, the Court orders the Clerk to SEAL Attachments

3A and 3B of the Complaint and remove such documents from public viewing on CM/ECF,

because the documents contain private medical information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02119-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/15/10 Page 3 of 3