Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Richard Hubbard
Plaintiff
Christopher Larsen
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

RICHARD HUBBARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ALJ MR. CHRISTOPHER LARSEN OF )

THE SOCIAL SECURITY )

ADMINISTRATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 ) 

)

 )

1:07-cv-01225-LJO-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS

CLAIM, TO ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF’S

CASE PROCEED AS ONE PURSUANT TO

42 U.S.C. § FOR REVIEW OF THE

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S

DENIAL OF BENEFITS, TO ORDER THE

CLERK, PLAINTIFF, AND MARSHAL TO

PROCEED TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THE

COMPLAINT, AND TO ORDER THE CLERK

TO ISSUE A SOCIAL SECURITY

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

and pro se with a civil action in this Court. The matter has been

referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

and Local Rules 72-302(c)(15) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended

complaint (FAC), which was filed on November 8, 2007.

I. Screening the Complaint 

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 9
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

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the 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 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A complaint, th

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 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 9
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

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

In the FAC, Plaintiff complains of the decision, dated

September 27, 2006, of the Social Security Administration’s

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Christopher Larsen, in which

Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was

denied. (FAC at 4-6.) Plaintiff complains about the ALJ’s

evaluation of evidence and also about the procedure used in

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 9
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

adjudicating his case, in which Plaintiff appeared without

counsel; Plaintiff asserts that his Due Process rights and other

constitutional rights were infringed. Plaintiff states that the

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on June 22,

2007. (Id. p. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that his suit is brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383, which provide for

judicial review of final decisions of the Commissioner of Social

Security with respect to SSI claims. (Id. at 7-8.) 

However, Plaintiff also characterizes his claim as a civil

rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because of

constitutional violations that Plaintiff alleges occurred within

the course of the Social Security proceeding. (FAC pp. 6, 7.)

Plaintiff names as the only defendants Michael J. Astrue, the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and the

Social Security Office of Disability Adjudication.

II. Claim against Commissioner for Review of Denial

 of Benefits

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) and 1383 for review of the SSA’s denial of his claim for

benefits, the Court determines that Plaintiff states a claim

against the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court notes that

Plaintiff will have an opportunity to raise the constitutional

issues set forth in his complaint in his brief before this Court

concerning his benefits claim. 

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the next

step with respect to his claim for review of the SSA’s decision

is to initiate service by directing the Clerk to issue and serve

a scheduling order as is customarily done in Social Security

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 4 of 9
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

cases, and send instructions and service documents to Plaintiff

to be completed and returned to the Court for forwarding to the

Marshal for service on the Defendant. The Court will recommend

this course with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against the

Commissioner.

III. Claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

With respect to Plaintiff’s civil rights claim pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief. 

Absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, the United

States cannot be sued; naming a federal officer or employee in

his or her official capacity is tantamount to a suit against the

sovereign itself and cannot be maintained in the face of

immunity. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458-59 (9 Cir. th

1985). Specifically, actions against federal agencies or offices

essentially must be brought against the United States. 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1346(b), 2672. Other than remedies provided for by §§ 1346 and

2672 against the United States, other civil actions or

proceedings for money damages are precluded. 28 U.S.C. § 2679.

Review of the statutory wording reveals that there is no

express waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq.

Further, with respect to SSA matters, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h)

expressly provides:

The findings and decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security after a hearing shall be binding

upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing.

No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security shall be reviewed by any person,

tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein

provided. No action against the United States, the

Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer

or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 5 of 9
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

or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under

this subchapter.

This provision barring federal question jurisdiction extends to

any action seeking to recover on any Social Security claim under

Title II of the Social Security Act pursuant to § 405(g)

irrespective of whether or not it is accompanied by a claim

concerning constitutional violations or challenges. Weinberger v.

Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 762 (1975). This provision bars general

federal question claims (28 U.S.C. § 1331), federal

constitutional and statutory claims against the United States (28

U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)), and claims under the Federal Tort Claims

Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Geschke v. Socal Security

Administration, 2007 WL 1140281, *5 (W.D.Wash 2007). It is

expressly provided by statute that the final determination of the

Commissioner after a hearing with respect to a Title XVI claim

“shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section

405(g)” to the same extent as determinations under section 405.

42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Further, the limitations of § 405(h)

apply to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as

for monetary benefits, and they apply even to constitutional

claims. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614-15 (1984); Geschke,

id. at *6. The essential inquiry in determining whether federal

question jurisdiction is barred is whether or not pursuant to §

405(h) the claim arises under the Social Security Act. Heckler,

466 U.S. at 614-15. Claims that are inextricably intertwined with

such claims are also barred. Id. 

Here, it is clear that Plaintiff’s claim arises under the

Act, and any constitutional challenge is inextricably intertwined

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 6 of 9
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

7

with his request for review. Accordingly, the Court does not have

subject matter jurisdiction over the present action. 

Further, to state a claim pursuant to § 1983, the two

essential elements are deprivation of a constitutional right, and

conduct by a defendant acting under the color of state law.

Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1353-54 (9 Cir. 1985). Here, th

Plaintiff cannot allege that any defendant was acting under color

of state law.

It does not appear possible that Plaintiff could allege

facts that would state a claim pursuant to § 1983, or any claim

concerning his denial of benefits against federal defendants

other than the correct party, namely, the Commissioner of Social

Security. The proper defendant in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking the Court to review a final

decision denying Social Security benefits is the Commissioner

Social Security. Butler v. Apfel, 144 F.3d 622, 624 (9 Cir. th

1998).

IV. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that

1) Plaintiff’s complaint against the S.S.A. Office of

Disability Adjudication BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for

failure to state a claim or a basis for jurisdiction in this

Court; and

2) Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 BE

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a claim or

a basis for jurisdiction in this Court; and

3) With respect to Plaintiff’s claim against the

Commissioner of the SSA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383,

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

the Court

a) DETERMINE that service is appropriate on the

Commissioner of Social Security, Michael J. Astrue, and

b) DIRECT THE CLERK to ISSUE A SCHEDULING ORDER

customarily issued in Social Security Cases, and

c) DIRECT THE CLERK to send Plaintiff one USM-285 form,

one summonses, an instruction sheet, a notice of submission of

documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the first

amended complaint filed in this Court on November 8, 2007; and

d) DIRECT PLAINTIFF within thirty days from the date of

service of the Court’s order TO COMPLETE the Notice of Submission

of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the Court with

the following documents:

1. Completed summons;

2. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant

listed above; and 

3. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed in

this Court; and

e) DIRECT THE CLERK upon receipt of the documents

described above TO FORWARD them to the United States Marshal to

serve the above-named Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

f) INFORM PLAINTIFF that Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this

action for failure to obey this Court’s order. Local Rule 11-110.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 7, 2007

 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder

SANDRA M. SNYDER

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01225-SMS Document 8 Filed 12/10/07 Page 9 of 9