Villalobos v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and found it failed to state a claim because it did not identify when the plaintiff alleges she became disabled. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice and granted Plaintiff until September 6, 2019, to file a Second Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of First Amended Complaint without prejudice“In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and the pleading standards for Social Security appeals, which require the complaint to state the nature of the disability and the alleged onset date. The order recites that the FAC identified the disability and the legal error but omitted the onset date, citing district court authority for this requirement. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is consistent with the purpose of the screening statute. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory screening provision and district court precedent regarding the specific pleading requirements for Social Security appeals. It clearly identifies the defect (missing onset date) and provides a mechanism for cure (leave to amend).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSA MARIA VILLALOBOS, Case No.: 19cv1312-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 ANDREW SAUL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for IFP status and 18 dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. ECF 19 No. 7. On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff timely submitted a First Amended Complaint 20 (“FAC”). ECF No. 8. 21 The Court screens Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. 22 1915(e). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint now identifies both the nature of Plaintiff’s 23 disability and the nature of her disagreement with the Social Security Administration. 24 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) she suffers from a “severe medically determinable 25 impairment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine” (FAC at ¶ 9(a)); and (2) the 26 ALJ “failed to provide[] specific and legitimate reasons in giving little weight to two Social 27 Security Administration State Agency psychological consultants who assessed a severe 28 | || mental impairment with limitations as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and case law” 2 || (FAC at 7 %(c)). 3 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint however still fails to identify when she alleges 4 she became disabled. See Varao v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 U.S. Dist. > || LEXIS 16258, at * 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (“[T]he complaint must state the nature of 6 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled.”’) (emphasis added) 7 (quoting Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30114, 8 at *3-5 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (citations omitted)). ? In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's First Amended 10 |! Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted until September 6, 2019 to file Il lla Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint 12 || within the time permitted, or if the Second Amended Complaint fails to address the defect 13 || identified above, the Court may enter a final order dismissing the action with prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || Dated: August 28, 2019 NO Nog) 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28