Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00816/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00816-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

AROR-ARK O’DIAH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DISCOVER BANK, a/k/a DISCOVER a/k/a

DISCOVER BANK CREDIT CARD, DISCOVER

BANK CREDIT CARD OPERATIONS MANAGERS,

NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN LOWER

MANHATTAN HOSPITAL, DR. COLLEEN

McCARTHY, JASON AUSMUS, SZEKUM TAM,

ELLEN HAWA, WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE a/k/a

WEILL CORNELL INTERNAL MEDICINE

ASSOCIATES, NEW YORK MEDICAL AND

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER a/k/a ORTHO-NEUROMUSCULO-SKELETAL DIAGNOSTIC AND

TREATMENT CENTER, AND ALL CENTERS

PHYSICIANS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS, NEW

YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES

ADMINISTRATION, FLORENCE MERCER,

COMMISSIONER SAMUEL ROBERTS FOR THE

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY

AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants. /

No. C 19-00816 WHA

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT

AND TO TRANSFER

SINGLE CLAIM TO

PROPER VENUE

INTRODUCTION

In this civil rights action, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte has filed a Report and

Recommendation regarding plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and complaint. For the

reasons below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, plaintiff’s application to proceed

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/15/19 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

in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and all claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against

defendants, except for claims related to a Social Security disability decision dated December 14,

2018. Claims related to that decision will be TRANSFERRED to the proper venue, the Eastern

District of New York.

STATEMENT

On February 14, plaintiff Aror-Ark O’Diah, proceeding pro se, brought this action

against Discover Bank, Discover Bank Credit Card Operations Managers; New YorkPresbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital, Dr. Colleen McCarthy, Jason Ausmus, Szekum Tam,

and Ellen Hawa; Weill Cornell Medicine; New York Medical and Diagnostic Center; New York

Human Resources Administration; Commissioners Samuel Roberts and Florence Mercer of the

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance; and the Social Security

Administration. This case was related to C 19-01854 by April 29 order of the undersigned

(Dkt. No. 18). That case named forty-six other defendants, included some overlapping

allegations to this complaint, and is dealt with in a separate order.

Here, plaintiff’s complaint contains nearly 100 paragraphs alleging such wide-ranging

misconduct against him from improper calculations of his Social Security benefits to being set

on fire while he was in prison to being refused medical treatment due to his lack of health

insurance (Dkt. No. 1). In fourteen separate claims alleging violation of his constitutional rights

due to discrimination for his national origin or failure to provide timely government benefits,

plaintiff seeks $50 million against each defendant, for $1.2 billion in damages. Plaintiff also

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3). 

On March 15, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte filed a report and recommendation

that: (1) granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) recommended

dismissal of all claims without prejudice, except for plaintiff’s claim relating to his appeal of the

Social Security Administrative Law Judge’s decision that plaintiff’s period of disability began

only as of September 2016, rather than June 2000 as plaintiff contends; and (3) recommended

transfer of the Social Security claim to the Eastern District of New York, which appears to be

the proper venue for plaintiff’s social security appeal (Dkt. No. 9). Any objection to Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/15/19 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

Laporte’s report and recommendations was due within 14 days after being served with a copy. 

Service was completed on March 15, 2019 (Dkt. No. 9-1). As of the date of this order, plaintiff

has not filed any objection.

ANALYSIS

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Laporte’s Report and Recommendation,

plaintiff has failed to state any claims against defendants that are not frivolous (Dkt. No. 9). 

In defining the meaning of “frivolous” under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the United States

Supreme Court has held that the in forma pauperis statute gives judges “the unusual power to

pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual

contentions are clearly baseless . . . describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with

which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327

(1989). “A court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the

pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations . . . [A] finding of

factual frivolousness is appropriate 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).

Plaintiff has two claims that need to be addressed in other forums. First, plaintiff claims

that he was denied relief from the New York City Human Resources Administration for welfare

assistance in 2014, in spite of an order, supposedly issued by an administrative law judge, that

benefits be given retroactively. If there is a legal basis for that claim, plaintiff needs to seek

relief in the proper jurisdiction. This court cannot enter the relief that plaintiff seeks against a

state agency for failure to pay welfare benefits. Second, plaintiff has filed his claim concerning

a Social Security disability decision in the wrong district. Plaintiff has two residences, one in

Oakland, California, and the other in Brooklyn, New York, evinced by documents attached to

his complaint (Dkt. No. 13-3). A complaint for judicial review of a Social Security decision

must be filed “in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the

plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside or have his

principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/15/19 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

for the District of Columbia.” 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g). Generally, a Social Security case that is

improperly venued will be transferred to the proper court. See Barrett-Barksdale v. Colvin,

2014 WL 4929444 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2014). 

CONCLUSION

The court has reviewed and hereby ADOPTS IN FULL Judge Laporte’s report and

recommendations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against all defendants except for those

related specifically to his appeal of the Social Security administrative law judge’s decision

regarding his date of disability are DISMISSED. The clerk shall transfer this action to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff’s ex parte application re

issuance of summons and service of the complaint (Dkt. No. 13) shall be HELD IN ABEYANCE

and ruled on by the district to whom this case is transferred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 24 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 4