Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Anthony Jerome Laws
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JEROME LAWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00309-CDB (SS)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

A COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER’S 

FINAL DECISION AND A COPY OF 

NOTICE RECEIVED FROM APPEALS 

COUNCIL DENYING HIS CLAIM

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

LONG-FORM APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR 

STATEMENT HE WISHES TO PROCEED

(Docs. 1, 2)

30-DAY DEADLINE

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff Anthony Jerome Laws, proceeding pro se, filed the 

complaint in this action. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). However, 

Plaintiff’s application does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine 

whether he is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. Accordingly, the 

Court will order Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239. If Plaintiff is unwilling to complete 

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 6
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

and submit the long form application, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full.

Separately, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 

finds that Plaintiff did not establish exhaustion of his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his application by filing a copy of the 

Commissioner’s final decision as well as a copy of the notice he received from the Appeals 

Council. The Court also finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional

(Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment) claims – Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a first 

amended complaint within 30 days that cures those deficiencies or a statement explaining he 

wishes to proceed on the original complaint as screened herein.

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 the financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and 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 

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 6
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

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 

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

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). 

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 6
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

In addition, courts within the Ninth Circuit have set forth the following basic requirements 

that are necessary to survive a screening under Section 1915(e):

First, the plaintiff must establish that he has exhausted [his] administrative remedies 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within 

sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the 

judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the 

nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims [he] became 

disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement 

identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made 

by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Mercado v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-01713 (NLS), 2023 WL 2336909, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2023)

(quoting Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-CV-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. 

Mar. 8, 2016) (alterations added)); Graves v. Colvin, No. 2:15-CV-106-RFB-NJK, 2015 WL 

357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015).

Read liberally, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be an appeal of the Commissioner’s 

decision denying the award of benefits to Plaintiff. Plaintiff resides in Bakersfield, California., 

and alleges that he applied for Social Security income in July 2021, and was denied in December 

2021. (Doc. 1 p. 5). Thereafter, he requested review before an administrative law judge and 

received an adverse decision on April 14, 2023. He thereafter requested review of that decision, 

which was denied in January 2024. Id. Plaintiff claims that his application was wrongfully denied

since his doctor told him that he is unemployable due to his diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, 

panic disorder, and anxiety and depression. Id. Plaintiff asserts that he should be approved for 

social security income. Id. at 6.

In addition to seeking the award of benefits, Plaintiff also seeks $100,000.00 in relief for 

the pain and suffering he endured in what appears to be claims for violations of the Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendments. The United States Supreme Court has found that Section 405(g) 

provides the exclusive mechanism for bringing Social Security Claims in federal court. Shalala 

v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 10 (2000). Section 405(h) bars all other 

claims, including claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with a claim for Social Security 

benefits or if the “substantive basis” of the claim is the Social Security Act. Heckler v. Ringer, 

466 U.S. 602, 614-15 (1984). Here, Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are “inextricably 

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 6
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

intertwined” with his claim for benefits and therefore are barred by Section 405(h). See Okimoto 

v. Social Security Administration, No. 15-00425 HG-RLP, 2015 WL 7264827, at *3 (D. Haw. 

Oct. 22, 2015).

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a first amended complaint within 30 days in which he may 

choose to remove the constitutional claims. If Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint 

that maintains the constitutional claims, the undersigned will recommend to an assigned district 

judge that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that the 

constitutional claims be dismissed.

Additionally, Plaintiff is required to establish that he exhausted his administrative remedies 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that he timely filed this action within 60 days after the notice 

of a final decision. Without this information, the Court is unable to determine jurisdiction.

Although Plaintiff avers that he received a final decision on January 2024, and that the deadline 

to file his claim was March 15, 2024 (Docs. 1,3), Plaintiff’s complaint in this Court should have 

an attached copy of the Commissioner’s final decision as well as a copy of the notice Plaintiff

received when his appeal was denied by the Social Security Appeals counsel. 

V. Conclusion and Order

For the forgoing reasons, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward to Plaintiff 

an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 

239.

And the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. By no later than April 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court either (1) a completed 

AO 239 Long Form or (2) the $405.00 filing fee.

2. By no later than April 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court copies of the 

Commissioner’ final decision as well as the notice he received from the Appeals Council denying 

review. The Court shall hold any resubmitted motion by Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis

in abeyance until it receives the documents identified above.

3. By no later than April 15, 2024, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court either (1) a first 

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 6
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

amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified above or (2) a statement that he 

wishes to proceed on his original complaint, including the constitutional claims alleged therein 

for which the undersigned has found this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to 

correct the deficiencies in the operative complaint identified by the undersigned in this Order 

will result in a recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and to dismiss 

the complaint.

Plaintiff is warned that any amended complaint will supersede the prior complaint and must 

plead all his claims without reference to a prior complaint.

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned shall recommend 

that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00309-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 6