Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06603/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06603-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARING PARK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 18-06603 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IFP

APPLICATION, DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND, AND DENYING 

REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

Pro se plaintiff Waring Park has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

in this action against the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff Park also requests the

appointment of counsel. 

1. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute

an action without prepayment of filing fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he

is financially unable to do so. Two prior orders denied plaintiff’s IFP application without

prejudice, noting that the application was incomplete and missing two pages (Dkt. Nos. 4, 8).

Plaintiff has now submitted a complete IFP application (Dkt. No. 10). It is evident from

plaintiff’s application that his assets and income are insufficient to enable him to pay the filing

fees. Thus, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

2. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Even though plaintiff is granted IFP status, service of the complaint shall not be

undertaken by the United States Marshals Service. Once a plaintiff has been permitted to

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/23/19 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

proceed IFP, the court is under a continuous duty to dismiss the action if it determines that the

action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). For purposes of Section 1915, a frivolous claim is one that lacks an

arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To state

a claim for relief, the complaint must contain a “short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A court must liberally construe any pro se

filings and afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Piller, 627 F.3d 338, 341–42

(9th Cir. 2010).

Here, even under a liberal construction, the complaint does not contain a short and plain

statement showing plaintiff is entitled to relief. Based on a careful reading of the complaint,

plaintiff seems to be contesting a decision by the Social Security Administration to suspend

his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. It is unclear when exactly the suspension

occurred, but plaintiff is requesting an “injunction to enable return to ‘status quo ante,’ namely

restoration of Supplement Security Income payments, while the appeal is being argued”

(Compl. at 2). 

Construing the claim liberally, plaintiff seeks to contest the suspension of his SSI

payments and requests immediate judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s

decision. Congress, however, has expressly provided for limited circumstances under which

an individual may bring suit against the Social Security Administration: 

Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, . . .

may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action

commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of

such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of

Social Security may allow. 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). Section 405(h) clarifies further: 

No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or

governmental agency except as herein provided. No action

against the United States, the Commissioner of Social Security,

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.

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/23/19 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Thus, judicial review of administrative decisions by the Social Security Administration is

limited to a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Califano v. Sanders,

430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). And, a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

requires: “(1) presentment of the claim to the Commissioner, and (2) complete exhaustion of

administrative remedies.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The Social Security Administration’s regulations further lay out the required process to

go from an initial determination to a final decision of the Commissioner. An individual who is

dissatisfied with the Social Security Administration’s initial determination must (1) first seek

administrative reconsideration, (2) then seek an administrative hearing, (3) then file a request

for Appeals Council review of the decision. See 20 C.F.R §§ 416.1407, 416.1429, 416.1467. 

Only when the Appeals Council either denies review or grants review and issues a decision is

the administrative review process complete. Only then may the final decision of the

Commissioner be judicially reviewed. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

Here, plaintiff has not established that he has exhausted his administrative remedies

and obtained a final decision from the Commissioner. In his complaint, plaintiff mentioned that

his SSI monthly payments were suspended because he opened a money account. It seems that

plaintiff argued against this initial determination, but the appeal was allegedly ignored, and

plaintiff was unable to follow up due to a bicycle accident (Compl. at 2–3). Even under a

liberal construction where plaintiff is given the benefit of the doubt, the complaint cannot be

said to contain the necessary facts to establish that a final decision of the Commissioner exists,

which is needed to establish jurisdiction for judicial review. Therefore, the complaint is

DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

3. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

A court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision to appoint such counsel is within “the sound discretion of

the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of

both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/23/19 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

At this stage, this order does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances as plaintiff

has demonstrated neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor the presence of complex

legal issues. Until plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies, it is unclear whether judicial

review will even be necessary. The Social Security Administration could decide, through its

administrative process, that plaintiff deserves to have his SSI benefits reinstated, eliminating

the need for judicial review entirely. Further, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel

seems largely dependent on his difficulty in sending and receiving correspondence in

connection with the instant action rather than the presence of complex legal issues (Compl. at 2;

Dkt. No. 6). Thus, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, plaintiff Park’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Finally, plaintiff Park’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Plaintiff may find it useful to contact the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by

the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco. Help Centers are

located at the San Francisco and Oakland Courthouses and assistance is available by

appointment. To make an appointment, call (415) 782-8982. See also

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 11 Filed 04/23/19 Page 4 of 4