Opinion
23-CV-2173-SBC
12-01-2023
MARK DAVID JAYNES, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Steve B. Chu, United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on the Complaint (“IFP Motion”). (Doc. No. 2.) The Court screens Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e), as required when a plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds the Complaint fails to sufficiently states a claim for relief and, for this reason, does not reach the merits of whether Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee associated with this litigation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion without prejudice, DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice, and elaborates below.
Complaints filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis (“IFP”) provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. section 1915 (“Section 1915”) are subject to mandatory screening under Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating “1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to dismiss complaints that are “frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief.” Shawn C. v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 7006799, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).). To that end, Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules of Social Security Actions (“Supplemental Rules”) define the minimal pleading requirements applicable to actions arising under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) (“Section 405(g)”), as here.
Under the Supplemental Rules, complaints brought under Section 405(g) must (1) affirm the action is brought under Section 405(g); (2) identify the final decision to be reviewed, inclusive of any identifying designation the Commissioner of Social Security attributed to such decision; (3) state the plaintiff's name and county of residence; (4) name the person “on whose wage record benefits are claimed;” and (5) identify the type of benefits claimed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). Additionally, the Supplemental Rules provide that the complaint “may include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. SS Rule 2(b)(2).
Here, the Court finds the Complaint fails to state a claim. As a threshold matter, the Complaint satisfies Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(D)'s requirements by (1) affirming that Plaintiff “brings this action under the provisions of [Section] 405(g);” (2) identifying the October 3, 2023, Decision from the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) along with the “Beneficiary Notice Control (“BNC”) Number” associated with the Decision; (3) submitting Plaintiff's name and county of residence; and (4) confirming Plaintiff claims benefits on his own wage record. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ A-D.) However, Plaintiff fails to identify the type of benefits claimed pursuant to Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(E). Notably, the Complaint appears to reveal typographical errors and confusion about the type of benefits claimed. Specifically, the Court refers to the capitalized language in the following excerpt from the Complaint:
“E. Plaintiff claims eligibility for Social Security Disability (T2) and Supplemental Security Income Disability (T16) DELETE IF NOT T16 on the following grounds:
PLAINTIFF'S GROUNDS FOR RELIEF: Plaintiff submits that he should be found disabled and entitled to Social Security Disability (SSDI) AND SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME DISABILITY V - DELETE IF NOT NEEDED as of the applications dated February 25, 2021 because there is insufficient medical or vocational evidence in the record to support the conclusion that he is not disabled and is able to work full time for substantial gainful activity in the national economy.”
The capitalized language in paragraph E of the Complaint muddies whether Plaintiff exclusively seeks Social Security Disability benefits or additionally seeks Supplemental Security Income Disability benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements under Rule 2(b)(1) of the Supplemental Rules. Relatedly, the Court opines that the Complaint fails to set forth with minimal specificity the basis for his claim for relief. As noted, social security appeals are not exempt from the section 1915(e) screening requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint merely stating that the Commissioner's decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff's pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, 2015 WL 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner's decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added).
Given the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs IFP Motion without prejudice, DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice, and ORDERS Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint curing the above-noted deficiencies no later than Friday, December 29, 2023 .
IT IS SO ORDERED.