United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC
NO. 1) AND COMPLAINT (EFC NO. 1-1)
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court are Plaintiff Laura Noland's application to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and complaint
(ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's
in forma pauperis application is granted. The Court,
however, orders that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed
filings present two questions: (1) whether Plaintiff may
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and (2) whether Plaintiff's complaint states a
plausible claim for relief. Each is discussed below.
Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a
civil action “without prepayment of fees or security
thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit
that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.” According to
Plaintiff's affidavit, she receives monthly welfare
assistance and has only $13 on hand. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis is, therefore, granted.
Section 1915(e) Screening
the Court grants Plaintiff's application to proceed
in forma pauperis, it must review Plaintiff's
complaint to determine whether the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a plausible claim. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
provides that a complaint “that states a claim for
relief” must contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to
relief.” If the Court dismisses a complaint under
§ 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend
the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies,
unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v.
United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
complaint fails to include several statements critical to
showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief in this action.
The complaint appears to be a demand letter written to the
Social Security Administration rather than a filing directed
towards the Court. (ECF No 1-1). The complaint does not
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court's jurisdiction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). An
individual “may obtain a review of” a
“final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security” in “a civil action commenced within
sixty days after the mailing…of notice of such
decision.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). However,
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state (1) there was a
final decision by the Commissioner and (2) this action was
brought within the appropriate time. In addition, the
complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While the complaint does
mention that there are “numerous issues with the Law
Judge's decision” (ECF No. 1-1 at 2), the complaint
fails to state (1) what Plaintiff's alleged disability
is, (2) what the Law Judge's ruling was, and (3) how the
“numerous issues” Plaintiff cites impacted the
Law Judge's ruling. These deficiencies may be cured by
allowing the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint containing these necessary facts.
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1)
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the
Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1)
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until December 8, 2017 to
file an Amended Complaint. Failure to timely file an Amended
Complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted in this Order
may result in a recommendation for dismissal with prejudice.
FURTHER ORDERED that if an Amended Complaint is later filed,
the Clerk of the Court is directed NOT to
issue summons on the Amended Complaint. The Court will issue
a screening order on the Amended Complaint and address the