Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01198/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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 - 11-cv-01198-AJB -BGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH D. IRELAND,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:11-cv-01198-AJB -BGS

vs. ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[DOC NO. 2], AND MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[DOC. NO. 3] AS MOOT

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner appearing pro se, filed the instant complaint on June 1, 2011, along

with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. All parties

instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an

application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (2006). 

An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (2006). See Rodriguez

v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any

person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua

sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he

Case 3:11-cv-01198-AJB-BGS Document 4 Filed 06/20/11 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 - 11-cv-01198-AJB -BGS

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court reviewing a

complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own

motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

As currently plead, it is clear that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one

particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 (1976). 

However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

“[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.

1995). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim

for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of

[her] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007) (quotation omitted).

In the complaint, Plaintiff claims that his “request for review of appeals council action” was

denied by the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

because the request was not timely filed. (Compl. 1, Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts that the

untimeliness of his request was “not his fault,” because he relied upon an advocate provided by the

local welfare office to timely file the request on Plaintiff’s behalf, which the advocate did not do. 

(Id.) Plaintiff “seeks relief from the court in this matter.” (Id. at 2.) 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 3:11-cv-01198-AJB-BGS Document 4 Filed 06/20/11 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 - 11-cv-01198-AJB -BGS

The Court finds these allegations are insufficient to put defendant on notice of the claims

against it, as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Court finds

the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the instant

complaint must be SUA SPONTE DISMISSED WITHOUT PRJUDICE pursuant to §

1915(e)(2)(B). As such, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Request for

Appointment of Counsel are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01198-AJB-BGS Document 4 Filed 06/20/11 Page 3 of 3