United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (MOT. EXT. TIME - ECF NO. 5; REQUEST DUP. AUDIO
& EXS. - ECF NO. 6)
A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Tasheona
Williams' Motion to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 5) and Request for Duplicate Audio Recording of the
Original Hearing and Exhibits (ECF No. 6). These Motions are
referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
William's motion requests additional time to comply with
the court's Screening Order (ECF No. 3), which dismissed
her original complaint and gave her until September 27, 2017,
to file an amended complaint that corrects the noted
deficiencies. She has obtained the assistance of a paralegal
to help her draft the amended complaint. The court will grant
the motion and allow Williams until November 13, 2017, to
file her amended complaint.
regard to Williams' second request, she asserts that she
needs access to the exhibits the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) used to support his decision and a
duplicate audio recording of the hearing to file an amended
complaint that properly delineates which portions of the
decision are not supported by substantial evidence. This
suggests that Williams may be confusing her amended complaint
with her motion for reversal and/or remand, which will be
submitted at a later stage of this case. Williams's
amended complaint only needs to provide a short and plain
statement of her claim showing that she is entitled to
relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The amended complaint
should state when and how a plaintiff exhausted her
administrative remedies with the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) and the nature of her
disability, including when she claims she became disabled.
The amended complaint should also contain a short and concise
statement identifying the nature of Williams's
disagreement with the SSA's decision and show that she is
entitled to relief. Although this showing need not be made in
great detail, it must provide sufficient detail for the court
to understand the disputed issues so that it can meaningfully
screen the complaint. See 4 Soc. Sec. Law &
Prac. § 56:4 (2016); 2 Soc. Sec. Disab. Claims Prac.
& Proc. §§ 19:92-93 (2nd ed. 2015).
Clerk of the Court will be instructed to mail Ms. Williams a
blank form complaint for review of social security
decision. This form was created to assist
individuals who represent themselves in submitting a
sufficient pleading. Although a form complaint cannot cover
every type of social security case, it does highlight certain
information that is useful to the court for screening
purposes and may aid Ms. Williams in stating a colorable
request is also premature. The court's standard practice
in cases reviewing a SSA decision is to enter a screening
order evaluating the claims alleged in the complaint (or
amended complaint). If the pleading states an actionable
claim, the court directs issuance of summons and service.
Once service is completed and the Commissioner files an
answer, the court enters a scheduling order. The scheduling
order requires the Commissioner to file a certified copy of
the administrative record with the court under seal. The
Commissioner also provides the plaintiff with a certified
copy of the administrative record, which contains a full and
accurate transcript of the entire record of proceedings
related to the case, including any exhibits relied upon by
the ALJ in the decision, and a transcript of the hearing.
Thus, Ms. Williams will receive the information she seeks in
the ordinary course if she is able to state a claim, shortly
after a scheduling order is entered.
addition, the scheduling order provides deadlines for the
parties to brief a motion for reversal and/or remand and
outlines certain requirements for the motion. The court
decides an appeal of a decision denying benefits based on the
parties' briefs and the administrative record. Thus,
Williams's briefs will be her opportunity to make
detailed arguments about which portions of the ALJ's
decision are not supported by substantial evidence. Ms.
Williams' request is denied.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Motion to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 5) is GRANTED.
2. Request for Duplicate Audio Recording of the Original
Hearing and Exhibits Listed in Support of the Decision (ECF
No. 6) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall MAIL Ms. Williams: (i) one
blank form Complaint for Review of Social Security Decision,
Pro Se Form 13; (ii) a copy of the original Complaint (ECF
No. 4); (iii) a copy of the Screening Order (ECF No. 3); and
(iv) a copy of this Order.
4. Ms. Williams shall have until November 13,
2017, to file an amended complaint, if she believes
she can correct the deficiencies explained in the Screening
Order (ECF No. 3).
5. The amended complaint must be a complete document in and
of itself and will supersede the original complaint in its
entirety. Any allegations, parties, or requests for relief
from prior papers that are not carried forward in the amended
complaint will no longer be before the court.
6. Ms. Williams shall clearly title the amended complaint as
such by writing the words "FIRST AMENDED"
immediately above "Complaint for Review of a Social
Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income
Decision" and write ...