JASON FOWLER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Case No. 1:25-cv-00778-CDB (SS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 27, 2025
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER, AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS (Doc. 2)
I. Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
The 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.”
II. Screening Requirement
When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, 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.”
III. Pleading Standards
A complaint 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.”
... 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 Iqbal 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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2009). 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. Id. at 556. 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. Id. 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 relief.‘”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth
IV. Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to
Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business...The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
(Id.). Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.”
On February 26, 2025, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff‘s request for review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge denying Plaintiff‘s claim for benefits and income. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8). On May 22, 2025, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff‘s written request made on April 17, 2025, to extend time to file a civil action through and including June 26, 2025. (Id. ¶ 9). On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner‘s final decision. (See id.). Thus, Plaintiff‘s complaint is timely. Plaintiff claims residency in Tulare County, California. (Id. ¶ 1). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action.
///
///
///
///
///
Plaintiff‘s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision denying Social Security benefits and supplemental income. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2025
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE