Jaynes v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK DAVID JAYNES, Case No.: 23-CV-2173-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on 20 the Complaint (“IFP Motion”). (Doc. No. 2.) The Court screens Plaintiff’s Complaint under 21 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e), as required when a plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. The Court finds the Complaint fails to sufficiently states a claim for relief and, 23 for this reason, does not reach the merits of whether Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated 24 an inability to pay the filing fee associated with this litigation. Accordingly, the Court 25 DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Motion without prejudice, DISMISSES the Complaint without 26 prejudice, and elaborates below. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Complaints filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis (“IFP”) provisions of Title 28 2 U.S.C. section 1915 (“Section 1915”) are subject to mandatory screening under Section 3 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating “1915(e) not 4 only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that 5 fails to state a claim.”). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to dismiss complaints that 6 are “frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek 7 monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief.” Shawn C. v. Kijakazi, 8 2023 WL 7006799, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).). To 9 that end, Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules of Social Security Actions (“Supplemental 10 Rules”) define the minimal pleading requirements applicable to actions arising under Title 11 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) (“Section 405(g)”), as here. 12 Under the Supplemental Rules, complaints brought under Section 405(g) must (1) 13 affirm the action is brought under Section 405(g); (2) identify the final decision to be 14 reviewed, inclusive of any identifying designation the Commissioner of Social Security 15 attributed to such decision; (3) state the plaintiff’s name and county of residence; (4) name 16 the person “on whose wage record benefits are claimed;” and (5) identify the type of 17 benefits claimed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). Additionally, the 18 Supplemental Rules provide that the complaint “may include a short and plain statement 19 of the grounds for relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. SS Rule 2(b)(2). 20 Here, the Court finds the Complaint fails to state a claim. As a threshold matter, the 21 Complaint satisfies Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(D)’s requirements by (1) affirming that 22 Plaintiff “brings this action under the provisions of [Section] 405(g);” (2) identifying the 23 October 3, 2023, Decision from the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) along with the 24 “Beneficiary Notice Control (“BNC”) Number” associated with the Decision; (3) 25 submitting Plaintiff’s name and county of residence; and (4) confirming Plaintiff claims 26 benefits on his own wage record. (See Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ A-D.) However, Plaintiff fails to 27 identify the type of benefits claimed pursuant to Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(E). Notably, 28 the Complaint appears to reveal typographical errors and confusion about the type of 1 benefits claimed. Specifically, the Court refers to the capitalized language in the following 2 excerpt from the Complaint: 3 “E. Plaintiff claims eligibility for Social Security Disability (T2) and Supplemental Security Income Disability (T16) DELETE IF 4 NOT T16 on the following grounds: 5 PLAINTIFF’S GROUNDS FOR RELIEF: Plaintiff submits that he should be found disabled and entitled to Social Security 6 Disability (SSDI) AND SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY 7 INCOME DISABILITY V – DELETE IF NOT NEEDED as of the applications dated February 25, 2021 because there is 8 insufficient medical or vocational evidence in the record to 9 support the conclusion that he is not disabled and is able to work full time for substantial gainful activity in the national economy.” 10 11 The capitalized language in paragraph E of the Complaint muddies whether Plaintiff 12 exclusively seeks Social Security Disability benefits or additionally seeks Supplemental 13 Security Income Disability benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint fails 14 to meet the minimal pleading requirements under Rule 2(b)(1) of the Supplemental Rules. 15 Relatedly, the Court opines that the Complaint fails to set forth with minimal specificity 16 the basis for his claim for relief. As noted, social security appeals are not exempt from the 17 section 1915(e) screening requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. 18 Cal. June 28, 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in 19 forma pauperis complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 20 Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, 21 at *3. “A complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly 22 insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, 2015 WL 23 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 24 Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 25 forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 26 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 27 / / / 28 1 Given the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion without prejudice, 2 ||DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice, and ORDERS Plaintiff to file a First 3 || Amended Complaint curing the above-noted deficiencies no later than Friday, December 4 2023. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: December 1, 2023 BF .

9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28