Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01518-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Caleb Hester-McCoy
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALEB HESTER-MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-CDB (SS)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER, 

AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR 

REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 2) 

Plaintiff Caleb Hester-McCoy (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a

complaint on December 12, 2024, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and 

instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

(Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.

I. Proceeding in forma pauperis

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by 

a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person...possesses 

(and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and 

Case 1:24-cv-01518-CDB Document 3 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 4
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

finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.

II. Screening Requirement

When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or...seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous 

“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).

III. Pleading Standards

A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and...a demand for the relief 

sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the 

grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 

(2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:

... does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that 

offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions 

devoid of further factual enhancement. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 

F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin 

to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are 

“merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between 

possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 

Case 1:24-cv-01518-CDB Document 3 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 4
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 determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are 

not entitled to the same assumption of truth. (Id.). The Court may grant leave to amend a 

complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

IV. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying 

disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 

which provides:

Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing 

to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a 

review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the 

mailing to him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner 

may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States 

for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of 

business...The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript 

of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a 

rehearing.

(Id.). Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall 

be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

Following the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability 

benefits, the Appeals Council gave Plaintiff 60 days from November 14, 2024, plus an additional 

five (5) days for mail delivery, to file a civil action. (Doc. 1 at 1, ⁋ 2). On December 12, 2024, 

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final 

decision. (See id.). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff claims residency in Fresno, 

California. (Id. at 2, ⁋ 4). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action.

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-01518-CDB Document 3 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 4
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

V. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision 

denying Social Security benefits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed 

to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or 

Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01518-CDB Document 3 Filed 12/13/24 Page 4 of 4