United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS (Docs. 2, 4) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE
SUMMONS, SOCIAL SECURITY CASE DOCUMENTS, AND SCHEDULING ORDER
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT
JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Wojtowicz seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with an
action for judicial review of the administrative decision
denying his application for Social Security benefits. Pending
before the Court are the complaint and the motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2 and 4) For the
following reasons, the Court finds service of the complaint
Proceeding in forma pauperis
Court may authorize the commencement of an action without
prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person
. . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The Court reviewed the amended financial status
affidavit (Doc. 4), and finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) are satisfied. Therefore, Plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis is
individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to review the complaint and shall dismiss a
complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is
“frivolous, malicious or 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. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A
plaintiff's claim is frivolous “when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable
facts available to contradict them.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading must include a statement
affirming the court's jurisdiction, “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled
to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The purpose of the
complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims,
and the grounds upon which the complaint stands.
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512
(2002). The Supreme Court noted,
Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it
demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague and
conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action.
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation].
The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
[Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
“merely consistent with” a defendant's
liability, it “stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When
factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume
their truth and determine whether the facts would make the
plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are not
entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The
Court may grant leave to amend a complaint to the extent
deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc).
Discussion and Analysis
seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social
Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court may
have jurisdiction ...