D.A. v. Colvin
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-00143
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In D.A. v. Colvin, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kang allowed the Social Security appeal to proceed after mandatory complaint screening.
D.A.’s Social Security appeal was allowed to continue past mandatory fee-waiver screening; the Commissioner must provide the administrative record or respond within 60 days after notice.
What happened
In D.A. v. Colvin, D.A. asked the court to review the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court had separately allowed D.A. to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court reviewed the complaint to determine whether it was frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or sought money from an immune defendant. It found that the complaint met the required Social Security pleading requirements and raised a valid basis for review, but it did not decide whether D.A. should receive benefits.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang ordered that the complaint not be dismissed under the screening statute. The Social Security Administration must provide the administrative record or otherwise respond within 60 days after receiving notice of the case.
The detailed version
- D.A. v. Colvin · No. 3:25-cv-00143
- Kang
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
D.A. brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of an Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration decision denying applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court had separately granted D.A. permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Because D.A. was proceeding under the fee-waiver provisions, the court was required to screen the complaint. The screening statute requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from that relief.
Screening analysis
The court found that the complaint did not seek damages from the Commissioner; it sought an order reversing the benefits decision. The court also found that the Commissioner was not immune from the requested relief because § 405(g) authorizes federal judicial review of a final Commissioner decision made after a hearing in which the claimant was a party.
The court applied the minimum pleading requirements in Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) for Social Security actions. Those requirements include stating that the action arises under § 405(g), identifying the final decision under review, stating the name and county of residence of the person seeking benefits, identifying the person whose wage record is involved, and stating the type of benefits claimed. The court found that D.A.’s complaint satisfied each requirement. It also found that the complaint was neither frivolous nor malicious.
Ruling and next steps
The court ordered that D.A.’s complaint not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court expressly stated that this screening decision was without prejudice to later merits determinations after the Commissioner appears and the parties submit further arguments, records, or other materials through the required procedures.
The court directed that notice of the case be sent to the Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and the United States Attorney for the district. Under Supplemental Rule 4, the Commissioner must file a certified copy of the administrative record or otherwise respond within 60 days after notice is given. The parties were also reminded to follow the scheduling order, local rules, and other court orders.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.