Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01305/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01305-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Barry S.J. Jameson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY S.J. JAMESON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-1305 DB

ORDER

Plaintiff Barry Jameson is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 

before the court are plaintiff’s complaint, motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915, motion for permission for electronic filing, and request for status. (ECF Nos. 1-

4.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the Social Security Administration has failed to grant 

plaintiff a timely hearing. The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties 

proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 

Case 2:23-cv-01305-SCR Document 7 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 5
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

pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 

1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 

Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 

IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 

or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the 

District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 

whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 

the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true

////

Case 2:23-cv-01305-SCR Document 7 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 5
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

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that plaintiff’s “SSI was discontinued in July of 2022.” 

(Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 5.1) That same month plaintiff was informed plaintiff would have to pay 

back some of the money received as SSI. (Id. at 7.) Attached to the complaint is a copy of a 

letter from the Social Security Administration reflecting that plaintiff was billed for “an 

overpayment” of $20,142.44. (Id. at 72.) The complaint alleges that plaintiff has “filed 

numerous appeals” and repeatedly requested a hearing but has yet to receive a hearing. (Id. at 5.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (Id. at 6.) Pursuant to 

§1361 “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of 

mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to 

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” For mandamus relief to be appropriate, a party must 

demonstrate that the Commissioner “‘owe[d] him a clear nondiscretionary duty.’” Briggs v. 

Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1132, 1142 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 

(1984)) (alteration in original). “Mandamus is an ‘extraordinary remedy,’” Patel v. Reno, 134 

F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1998), that “is available only when ‘(1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and 

certain; (2) the duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no 

other adequate remedy is available.’” Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(quoting Or. Natural Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995)).

////

1 Page number citations such as this one are to the page number reflected on the court’s CM/ECF 

system and not to page numbers assigned by the parties.

Case 2:23-cv-01305-SCR Document 7 Filed 11/08/23 Page 3 of 5
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

Moreover, pursuant to the Social Security Act this court may only review a “final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to § 

405(g) a plaintiff must obtain a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after 

a hearing” before seeking judicial review of an agency decision regarding Social Security 

benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). “A final decision has two elements: (1) 

presentment of the claim to the Commissioner, and (2) complete exhaustion of administrative 

remedies.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). “[F]ailure to exhaust the 

procedures set forth in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. [section] 405(g), deprives the district 

court of jurisdiction.” Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 

Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984).). 

However, “[e]xhaustion may be waived, either by the Secretary . . . or by the courts.” 

Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1987). And “[u]nder 42 U.S.C. § 404, the SSA is 

prohibited from recovering overpayments made to a beneficiary until the SSA makes a prerecoupment decision on the beneficiary’s written reconsideration request and after an oral hearing 

on a request to waive recoupment.” Courtney v. Saul, 827 Fed. Appx. 738, 739 (9th Cir. 2020). 

“[I]f the SSA recovers an overpayment without rendering a decision on a claimant’s preliminary 

request to waive recoupment, the jurisdictional requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) are met and an 

action in federal court can proceed.” Id.

Accordingly, for purposes of screening, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s complaint 

has stated a claim. 

III. Request for Electronic Filing

On July 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for permission for electronic filing. (ECF No. 

3.) Plaintiff’s filing states only that plaintiff is “proceeding as a layperson-at-law” and therefore 

“requests permission to proceed by being able to use CM/ECF and PACER filing system.” (Id.) 

However, permission for electronic filing implicates certain requirements and responsibilities. 

See generally Local Rules 131, 133, 137, 140, & 141. Based on plaintiff’s sparse filing the 

undersigned is concerned that plaintiff may not be fully aware of the implications of being 

granted permission for electronic filing. Plaintiff’s motion, therefore, will be denied without 

Case 2:23-cv-01305-SCR Document 7 Filed 11/08/23 Page 4 of 5
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

prejudice to filing a renewed motion that acknowledges that plaintiff has reviewed the court’s 

Local Rules and requirements for electronic filing.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to serve upon plaintiff the 

undersigned’s Scheduling Order and Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment for social 

security cases.

3. In keeping with the court’s new e-service procedure for Social Security cases service 

on the defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration shall proceed under the court’s 

E-Service program as follows. Once a summons is issued, the Clerk of Court shall deliver to the 

Commissioner of Social Security Administration and the United States Attorney’s Office at their 

designated email addresses a notice of electronic filing of the action along with the summons and 

complaint. The Commissioner has agreed not to raise a defense of insufficient service of process 

if provided with notice of a complaint as detailed in this order. This order is not intended to 

prevent parties from making any other motions that are appropriate under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

4. Plaintiff’s July 10, 2023 request for permission for electronic filing (ECF No. 3) is 

denied without prejudice.

5. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2023 request for status (ECF No. 4) is denied as having been 

rendered moot. 

Dated: November 8, 2023

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.pro se\jameson1305.ifp

Case 2:23-cv-01305-SCR Document 7 Filed 11/08/23 Page 5 of 5