Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01452/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01452-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debra Lynn Jackson
Plaintiff
USOPM/Legal Reconsideration & Appeals
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DEBRA LYNN JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

USOPM/LEGAL RECONSIDERATION & 

APPEALS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT TO PROCEED AGAINST 

DEFENDANT U.S. OFFICE OF 

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND 

FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS 

TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND 

RETURN

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff, Debra Lynn Jackson, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 

appealing the decision of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) that Plaintiff is 

not eligible to continue her enrollment in a health benefits plan under the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program (“FEHBP”) into retirement. Plaintiff commenced this action on 

October 15, 2019, with the filing of a Complaint (ECF No. 1), which is before the Court for 

screening. The Court finds, for purposes of screening, that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable 

claim against Defendant. 

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in any case in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma 

pauperis, the Court must conduct a review of the claims brought by the plaintiff to determine 

whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or malicious,” or 

Case 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 6
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

“seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, it must be 

dismissed. Id. Similarly, if the Court determines the complaint is frivolous or malicious, it must 

be dismissed. Id. An action is deemed to be frivolous if it is “of little weight or importance: 

having no basis in law or fact” and malicious if it was filed with the “intention or desire to 

harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Leave to amend may be 

granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. 

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept 

the allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 

740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, 

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s 

favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be 

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally 

construed after Iqbal).

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS1

Plaintiff began working for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on January 16, 1984, 

 

1 This summary is based both on the allegations contained in the Complaint and information obtained from the 

attachments to the Complaint (ECF No. 1), all viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

Case 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 6
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

and first enrolled in a health insurance plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 

Program (“FEHBP”) when she became eligible to enroll on April 17, 1984. Plaintiff continued 

working for the IRS until she retired approximately 34 years later. She maintained her FEHB 

coverage for the entire 34 years, and thus had continuous FEHBP coverage for herself for the 5 

years immediately prior to her retirement. 

After Plaintiff retired, she was notified by Defendant that she is not entitled to continue 

her FEHBP coverage into retirement. This denial of benefits is based on Defendant’s 

determination that Plaintiff was not continuously enrolled in an FEHBP plan for the 5 years 

immediately prior to retirement. Plaintiff has filed this action to appeal Defendant’s denial of

FEHBP coverage into retirement.

III. EVALUATION OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant administers the FEHBP and is charged with determining coverage under the 

FEHBP in accordance with applicable laws. See 5 U.S.C. § 8901 et seq. 

A federal employee who retires as an “annuitant”2 may be entitled to continue their health 

insurance coverage into retirement. Specifically, 

An annuitant who at the time he becomes an annuitant was 

enrolled in a health benefits plan under this chapter--

(1) as an employee for a period of not less than--

(A) the 5 years of service immediately before 

retirement;

(B) the full period or periods of service between the 

last day of the first period, as prescribed by 

 

2 An “annuitant” is defined, in relevant part, as an employee who retires 

(i) on an immediate annuity under subchapter III of chapter 83 of this title, or 

another retirement system for employees of the Government, after 5 or 

more years of service;

(ii) under section 8412 or 8414 of this title;

(iii) for disability under subchapter III of chapter 83 of this title, chapter 84 of 

this title, or another retirement system for employees of the Government; or

(iv) on an immediate annuity under a retirement system established for 

employees described in section 2105(c), in the case of an individual who 

elected under section 8347(q)(2) or 8461(n)(2) to remain subject to such a 

system;

5 U.S.C. § 8901(3)(A). For purposes of screening, the Court assumes Plaintiff qualifies as an 

“annuitant.”

Case 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 6
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

regulations of the Office of Personnel Management, 

in which he is eligible to enroll in the plan and the 

date on which he becomes an annuitant; or

(C) the full period or periods of service beginning 

with the enrollment which became effective before 

January 1, 1965, and ending with the date on which 

he becomes an annuitant;

whichever is shortest; or

(2) as a member of the family of an employee or annuitant;

may continue his enrollment under the conditions of eligibility 

prescribed by regulations of the Office. The Office may, in its sole 

discretion, waive the requirements of this subsection in the case of 

an individual who fails to satisfy such requirements if the Office 

determines that, due to exceptional circumstances, it would be 

against equity and good conscience not to allow such individual to 

be enrolled as an annuitant in a health benefits plan under this 

chapter.

5 U.S.C. § 8905(b).

Viewing Plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and for purposes of 

screening only, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Defendants 

for the improper denial of eligibility to health insurance coverage into retirement. Specifically, 

Plaintiff alleges that she has maintained her FEHBP coverage from the time that she first 

became eligible for coverage to the date that she retired, including the 5 years immediately prior 

to her retirement, and that she is therefore entitled to continue her FEHBP insurance coverage 

into retirement.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) and finds that it states a 

cognizable claim against Defendant U.S. Office of Personnel Management for improper denial 

of eligibility for FEHBP insurance coverage into retirement. As this is the only claim Plaintiff 

brought in the Complaint, the Court will authorize service of the Complaint on Defendant. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Service of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is appropriate for the following defendant: 

a. U.S. Office of Personnel Management; 

Case 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 6
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

5

2. The Clerk of Court shall SEND Plaintiff three (3) USM-285 forms, three (3) 

summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a 

copy of the Complaint filed on October 15, 2019 (ECF No. 1);

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete 

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to 

the Court with the following documents:

a. A completed summons form for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2);

b. A completed USM-285 form for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management;

c. Two completed summons forms for the United States of America (one for the 

civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office and one for the 

Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.), see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(i)(1)(A)(ii) & (B) and 4(i)(2); 

d. Two completed USM-285 forms for the United States of America; and 

e. Four (4) copies of the endorsed Complaint filed on October 15, 2019 (ECF 

No. 1);

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendant and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the 

United States Marshals Service to serve the above-named Defendant pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Case 1:19-cv-01452-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 6 of 6