Giselle N. v. Kijakazi

Background

Giselle N. brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of a final decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for supplemental security income based on disability. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Because she was proceeding under that fee-waiver provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) required the court to screen the complaint. The court had to dismiss it if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought monetary relief from an immune defendant.

Screening analysis

The court concluded that the complaint did not seek damages from an immune defendant. Instead, it sought an order reversing the benefits decision, and federal law authorizes judicial review of final decisions by the Commissioner of Social Security.

The court applied Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) for Social Security actions. That rule requires a complaint to state that it is brought under § 405(g), identify the final decision being reviewed, state the name and county of residence of the person seeking benefits, identify the person whose wage record is involved, and state the type of benefits claimed. The court found that Giselle N.’s complaint satisfied each requirement. The complaint stated that the action arose under the Social Security Act and cited §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3); identified the administrative law judge’s decision and the date it became final; identified Giselle N. and her county of residence; stated that she sought review of the denial of her benefits claim; and identified supplemental security income based on disability as the type of benefits sought.

Disposition

Judge Peter H. Kang ordered that the complaint not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court also ordered transmission of a notice of electronic filing to the Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and the United States Attorney for the district. The court expressly stated that its screening determination was without prejudice to later decisions on the merits after the Commissioner appears and the parties present further arguments, records, or other matters through the required procedures. The opinion therefore did not decide whether Giselle N. is entitled to benefits or whether the Commissioner’s decision was correct.