Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00776/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jennifer Garza
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

JENNIFER GARZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00776-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 2)

Screening Order

 On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, by her Attorneys, Rohlfing &

Kalagian, LLP, filed a complaint. Because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires this Court

to dismiss it.

I. Screening Requirement

The statutory privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. 

Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 891 (1968); Smart v. th

Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, (1965). “Indigence does not create a th

constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of the courts in order

to prosecute an action which is totally without merit.” Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785

(11 Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the statute requires the Court to screen any case in which a th

plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Screening is required

///

1

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 1 of 7
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

even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of

social security disability benefits. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (establishing conditions under

which a claimant of social security benefits may seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s

determination). A court must dismiss any case, regardless of the fee paid, if the action or appeal

is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). 

II. Cognizable Claim

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, a court applies

substantially the same standard applied in motions to dismiss pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).1

Gutierrez v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1087261 at *1 (E.D.Cal. March 23, 2011) (No. 1:11-cv-00454-

GSA). “The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v.

California Department of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n. 1 (9 Cir. 1998). A court must th

dismiss a complaint, or portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

or her claim(s) that would entitled the plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.

69, 73 (1984). When a court reviews a complaint under this standard, it must accept as true the

complaint’s allegations (Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976)), construe the pleadings 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 (Jenkins v. th

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

A. Short and Plain Statement

The sufficiency of a complaint is first determined by referring to F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) which

requires that a civil complaint contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new

jurisdictional support;

///

When the plaintiff does not proceed in forma pauperis, the screening function is entrusted to the

1

defendant(s), who may challenge the sufficiency of a complaint through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

2

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 2 of 7
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) a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to

relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought which may include relief in the alternative

or different types of relief.

 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). A complaint appealing

the Commissioner’s decision denying social security disability benefits is not exempt from the

general rules of civil pleading. “While [42 U.S.C.] § 405(g) does not require that a complaint

spell out the basis upon which relief might be granted, Rule 8(a) requires a civil plaintiff to assert

the basis upon which he grounds his claim.” Brown v. Astrue, 2011 WL 3664429 at *2 (D.N.H.

August 19, 2011) (No. 11-cv-056-JL). The complaint must “must simply give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534

U.S. at 512.

B. Principles of Pleading

1. Factual Allegations and Legal Conclusions 

Determining a complaint’s sufficiency invokes two underlying principles of pleading. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007). First, the Court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the

complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual

matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949,

quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Although accepted as true, “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). A plaintiff

must set forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555-56

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A complaint appealing the Commissioner’s

///

3

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 3 of 7
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

denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why

the Commissioner’s decision was wrong. Brown, 2011 WL 3664429 at *3. See also

Demetriades v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4079054 (W.D.Va. September 13, 2011) (No. 7:11-cv-00407)

(dismissing case without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief as a result of

insufficient factual allegations); Ormsby v. Astrue, 2011 WL 3625101 at * 2, adopted by 2011

WL 3625095 (M.D. Fla. August 4, 2011) (No. 6:11-cv-1262-ORL-22) (dismissing cursory

complaint which alleged insufficient facts to state a cognizable claim).

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 678. A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.” Id. “Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9 Cir. 2001). th

2. Plausible Claim for Relief

The second underlying principle is that “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for

relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. To permit the Court to determine

that a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, based on the reviewing court’s judicial

experience and common sense, the well-pleaded facts must permit the court “to infer more than a

mere possibility . . . . ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id., quoting F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The

Supreme Court explained:

In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can

choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than

conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

entitlement to relief.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

See also Cook v. Astrue, 2012 WL 812380 at *2 (E.D.Cal. March 9, 2012) (No. 1:12-cv00347-GSA) (construing that the facts alleged in the complaint related to two legal conclusions);

Sanchez v. Astrue, 2011 WL 1549307 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2011) (No. 1:11-cv-00607-GSA).

///

4

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 4 of 7
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

C. Specific Matters to Be Plead in Social Security Appeals

Federal courts have identified several specific problem areas in complaints appealing the

Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits. For example, a court must dismiss a

complaint if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. F.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,

546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they are

presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case “unless the contrary affirmatively

appears.’” Pierre v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2012 WL 1066811 at *2, adopted by 2012

WL 1060154 (S.D. Fla. March 16, 2012) (No. 11-62408-CIV), quoting General Atomic Co. v.

United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 968-69 (9 Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982). th

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Friends of Panamint Valley

v. Kempthorne, 499 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1171 (E.D.Cal. 2007). Accordingly, a plaintiff appealing

the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits must plead facts establishing subject matter

jurisdiction. Pierre, 2012 WL 1066811 at *2. See also Ormsby, 2011 WL 3625101 at * 2. 

Similarly, because the appeal provision set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) constitutes a

waiver of sovereign immunity, courts must strictly construe the applicable time limit. Bowen v.

City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986). See also Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 513 (5

th

Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner for untimely filing of one

day). Accordingly, a complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denial of an application for social

security benefits must allege the dates of the plaintiff’s application(s) and the related denial(s). 

Cook, 2012 WL 812380 at *3; Sanchez, 2011 WL 1549307 at *2-3; Gutierrez, 2011 WL

1087261 at *3. The plaintiff must also allege that he or she filed a complaint to the Appeals

Council, setting forth the application date, the decision date, and the outcome. Id. See also

Pierre, 2012 WL 1066811 at * 3 (requiring a plaintiff to allege facts supporting the conclusion

that Commissioner rendered a final decision in the application below); Ormsby, 2011 WL

3625101 at * 2.

III. Conclusion and Order

In rejecting Brown’s complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denying him benefits, the

Court observed, “”The complaint’s sole assertion of a basis for relief is that Brown feels the SSA

5

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 5 of 7
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

decision was wrong.” Brown, 2011 WL 3664429 at *2. Every plaintiff appealing an adverse

decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong. The purpose of the

complaint is to briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal conclusion that the

Commissioner’s decision was wrong. Id. at *3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should do so.

Because the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted, this Court will dismiss it. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file

an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Plaintiff must

revise her amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to support a cognizable claim. Plaintiff

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in the amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, but must allege sufficient facts to establish

her cause of action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should focus on setting forth, as briefly but

specifically as possible, the facts necessary to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff must avoid surplusage, as well as advocacy and argumentation more appropriate in her

opening brief, which is to be submitted later.

 Plaintiff is advised that each amended complaint supercedes all prior complaints, Forsyth

v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), aff’d, 525 U.S. 299 (1999); King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior

or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. “All causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567;

accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state

facts sufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order;

and

///

6

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 6 of 7
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. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of this order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2012 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:12-cv-00776-SMS Document 4 Filed 05/16/12 Page 7 of 7