The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION (Doc.2)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc.1)
Plaintiff Joe R. Gomez, III ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action on January 14, 2011. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on that same date. Having reviewed the request, this court GRANTS Plaintiff Gomez's in forma pauperis application.
Plaintiff appears to be challenging a denial of his application for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. As discussed below, Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed because it fails to state a claim. However, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court determines that the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," 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(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment.
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id.
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
B. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff's complaint does not list a defendant and merely states as follows, "To whom it may concern, I am appealing the decision that the S.S.I. gave me. [sic] To federal court, on what I was told by my lawyer." (Doc. 1 at pg. 1). Attached to the complaint is a decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Michael Kopicki dated February 9, 2009. (Doc. 1 at pgs. 2-13). There are no other documents attached to Plaintiff's complaint that state a claim or establish that Plaintiff's case is ripe for review.