Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00869-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Michael Anthony Cordova
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Cordova seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis with this 

action for judicial review of the administrative decision to deny his application for Social Security 

benefits. For the following reasons, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and the 

complaint DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

I. Proceeding in forma pauperis

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “but 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). The Court 

has reviewed the applications and finds Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.

///

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORDOVA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00869 - JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 2,4)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:15-cv-00869-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

II. Screening Requirement

When an individual is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

complaint, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty 

is untrue, or the action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may 

be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). In addition, the Court may dismiss an action sua sponte if it lacks jurisdiction over 

the matter. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983).

III. Pleading Standards

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 

pleading stating a claim for relief 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). 

A complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and 

succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The 

purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds 

upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The 

Supreme Court explained,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an 

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me unlawfully 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).

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

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The 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.” [Citation]. 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. [Citation]. 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. [Citation]. 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.

Case 1:15-cv-00869-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. When the factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 

and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; conclusions in the pleading 

are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. If the Court determines that the complaint fails to 

state a cognizable claim, the Court may grant leave to amend to the extent that deficiencies of the 

complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000).

IV. Jurisdiction

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

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

in relevant part:

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. (emphasis added). 

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). The Supreme Court 

noted the purpose of the legislation was “to forestall repetitive or belated litigation of stale eligibility 

claims.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Thus the regulations operate as a statute of 

limitations a claimant to appeal a final decision of the Commissioner. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 

U.S. 467, 479 (1986); Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 n. 9 (1976)). Because the time limit is 

“a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity,” it “must be strictly construed.” Id.

V. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that he “has exhausted administrative remedies in this matter.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) 

However, there are no facts to support his conclusion, such as when Plaintiff requested review by the 

Appeals Council. Further, there is no information regarding when the decision of the administrative 

law judge became the “final decision” of the Commissioner. Without such information, the Court is 

Case 1:15-cv-00869-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 4
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

unable to determine whether the statute of limitations has run on the request for review, or whether the 

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

VI. Leave to Amend the Complaint

If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted 

to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that 

the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims 

that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley 

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 

651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 

The Court is not certain whether Plaintiff can allege facts that indicate the Court has 

jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to cure 

the deficiencies of this complaint by stating whether he requested review by the Appeals Council and, 

if so, when the Appeals Council ruled upon his request. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in a 

recommendation that the matter be dismissed. The amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2, 4) are GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to file an 

amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00869-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 4