United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)
Ginny
Rene Burns (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint in
this action against the Commissioner of Social Security.
I.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Notwithstanding
any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time
the Court determines that the complaint “(i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in
forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by
prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.
2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings
which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato
v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995)
(district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua
sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court
exercises its discretion to screen the plaintiff's
complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
In
determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the
Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a). 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
In
reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally
construe the pleadings and accept as true all factual
allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Although a court must
accept as true all factual allegations contained in a
complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal
conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are
‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint
must contain sufficient factual content for the court to draw
the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Allegations in Complaint
Plaintiff's
complaint is incomprehensible. Plaintiff attaches a letter
from the Social Security Administration, dated March 18,
2016, which informs her that she
“cannot enter any Social Security
office for any reason. This restriction means that if you
enter a Social Security office, you can be arrested and
charged with trespassing.” (ECF No. 1 at
7[1]
(emphasis in original). The letter states:
Why You May No. Longer Enter An Office
Your actions in the WEST FRESNO CA Social Security office
violated our regulations. These regulations prohibit
threatening or disorderly conduct on Federal property or
directed at our personnel. Specifically, on 03/18/2016, you
assault a federal officer, and was disruptive and disorderly
in the SSA office.
(Id. (errors in original).) Plaintiff was advised
that she may only enter an SSA office if she receives
“a certified letter with the specific date and
time of an appointment.” (Id.
(emphasis in original).) Plaintiff was also provided with
information on how to appeal the letter should she disagree
with the decision. (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff's
complaint appears to state that she did nothing wrong and is
entitled to more benefits that were withheld giving her nine
hundred dollars. However, the basis of Plaintiff's claims
in this action are not clear. The Court cannot determine if
Plaintiff is challenging the letter prohibiting her from
entering any Social Security office or if her claim is based
on the withholding of benefits. Plaintiff shall be provided
with an opportunity to file an amended complaint to clarify
the basis of her claims and is provided with the following
legal standards.
B.
Denial of Benefits Under the Social Security Act
Generally,
the United States and its agencies are entitled to sovereign
immunity from suit unless Congress has expressly waived
immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475
(1994); Kaiser v. Blue Cross of California, 347 F.3d
1107, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003); Hodge v. Dalton, 107
F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997). “Any waiver of immunity
must be ‘unequivocally expressed,' and any
limitations and conditions upon the waiver ‘must be
strictly observed and exceptions ...