Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00728/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00728-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Maxine Martinez
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

Maxine Martinez seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an action for judicial review of the 

administrative decision denying Social Security benefits. Pending before the Court are the complaint 

and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2) For the following reasons, the Court finds 

issuance of the new case documents is 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). The Court 

reviewed the financial status affidavit (Doc. 2), and finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are 

satisfied. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

///

MAXINE MARTINEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-0728- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

Case 1:20-cv-00728-CDB Document 3 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 3
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 seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 

complaint and shall dismiss a complaint, or portion of the complaint, 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. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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

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

pleading 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). The Supreme Court noted,

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.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.’

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 

assume their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal 

Case 1:20-cv-00728-CDB Document 3 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 3
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

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). 

Plaintiff asserts the Appeals Council issued a notice denying her request for review of the 

ALJ’s decision on March 23, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 1) Thus, the complaint was to be filed within sixty-five 

days, or no later than May 27, 2020. Because Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint prior 

to that date, the request for judicial review was timely under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

V. Conclusion and Order

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

Social Security benefits. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;

2. Because the case is STAYED by General Order 615, no summons will issue at this time. 

Once the stay is lifted, the case will proceed at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00728-CDB Document 3 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 3