1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 AMY GALANTE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01364-CDB (SS)

12 Petitioner, SCREENING ORDER REQUIRING

PETITIONER TO AMEND SOCIAL

13 v. SECURITY COMPLAINT

14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (ECF Nos. 1-2)

15 Respondent.

16 17 18 Petitioner Amy Galante (“Petitioner”) seeks judicial review of an administrative decision 19 of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Petitioner’s claim for disability benefits under 20 the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). 22 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis 23 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by 24 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assts such person…possesses 25 (and) that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 26 Here, the Court reviewed the financial status affidavit (ECF No. 2) and finds the requirements of 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied. 1 II. Screening Requirement 2 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 3 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails 4 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant 5 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A petitioner’s claim is 6 frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, 7 whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. 8 Hermandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). 9 III. Pleading Standards 10 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 11 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief 12 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the 14 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 15 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court:

16 Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that 17 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 18 of further factual enhancement. 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 20 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 21 673 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,

22 [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. 23 544, 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 24 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 25 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 26 possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.” 27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (2009). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume 1 | conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Jd. The Court may grant leave to 2 | amend a complaint to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. 3 | Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4|IV. Discussion and Analysis 5 Petitioner seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying 6 | disability benefits. The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which 7 | provides: 8 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 9 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 10 may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the Untied States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of 11 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 12 Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. 13 14 | Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]Jo findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall 15 | be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). 16 In this case, Petitioner’s Complaint fails to identify the judicial district in which she resides 17 | or has her principal place of business. See generally (ECF No. 1). Therefore, it is not clear if 18 | the Court has jurisdiction over this action. Conclusion and Order 20 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner shall have 21 days to amend her complaint and identify where Petitioner resides and/or 22 | Petitioner’s primary place of business. 23

IS SO ORDERED.

24 Ko Dated: _ October 27, 2022

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28