Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01286/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01286-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Aaron Phillip Jackson
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

AARON PHILLIP JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01286-CDB (SS)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE 

SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER, AND 

CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR 

REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 2) 

Aaron Phillip Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on October 22, 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 the 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-01286-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 10/24/24 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-01286-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 10/24/24 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 sixty (60) days from September 12, 2024, plus an 

additional five (5) days for mail delivery, to file a civil action. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2). On October 22, 

2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court seeking judicial review of the 

Commissioner’s final decision. Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Id. Plaintiff states that 

he resides in Kern County, California. Id. at ¶ 4. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this 

action.

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 

Case 1:24-cv-01286-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 10/24/24 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01286-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 10/24/24 Page 4 of 4