United States District Court, E.D. Washington
28 U.S.C. § 1915A REVIEW; DISMISSING
STANLEY A. BASTIAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
is representing herself in this matter. She filed her
Complaint on February 2, 2019, ECF No. 1, and also filed an
accompanying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF
No. 2. Her application was initially denied, but her renewed
application was granted on March 4, 2019. She subsequently
filed two Supplements. ECF No. 10, 11.
U.S.C. § 1915 Review
individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to review the complaint and dismiss such complaint,
or portions of the complaint, 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.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-2 (9th
Cir. 1981). A plaintiff's claim is frivolous “when
the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, a court takes the factual
allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1988). On the other hand, mere legal conclusions, “are
not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Dismissal can
be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
theory.” Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699.
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading 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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
U.S. Supreme Court instructs:
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. 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. 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.
Where a complaint pleads fact that are merely consistent with
a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations and quotations
appears that Plaintiff is challenging the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) computation of her disability
payments. She also cites to numerous criminal code provisions
and attached various notices that she received from the
Social Security Administration to the Complaint.
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim and borders
on being frivolous.
extent Plaintiff is challenging the SSA's decision, for
this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction, there must be
a final decision by the Secretary. 28 U.S.C. § 405(g).
There are no allegations in the Complaint that Plaintiff
appealed any of the decision of the SSA, although she
attached a request for reconsideration dated in November
2018. This reconsideration process needs to be completed
before the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's Complaint. To the extent Plaintiff is relying
on the U.S. Criminal Code to state her claims, such statutes
do not provide the basis for a private cause of action.
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.
1980) (noting that unless explicitly provided for by statute,
criminal statutes do not provide a basis for private causes
Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts regarding the
actions of the individually-named Defendants to state a ...