Opinion
CASE NO. 12-CV-1544 BEN (KSC)
09-18-2012
DEWAYNE E. SHAVERS, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
[Docket No. 2]
On June 22, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Dewayne Shavers filed a Complaint against the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2.) The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted. For the reasons outlined below, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice and DENIES as moot Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint appears to contest the denial of Plaintiff's disability benefits by the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. The Complaint is written on a form entitled "Request for Appointment of Counsel Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e 5(f)(1); Declaration in Support of Request," and does not include any facts establishing that Plaintiff is entitled to receive disability benefits, why the disability benefits were denied, or why this denial of benefits was wrongful. A form entitled "Notice of Appeals Council Action" stating that the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review denied Plaintiff's disability benefits is attached to the Complaint.
DISCUSSION
I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING AND DISMISSAL
A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000).
The legal sufficiency of a complaint is tested under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). That is, the complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the claim. Id. at 556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530,534 (9th Cir. 1984). The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Pro se litigants are not "excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements." Am. Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, the Complaint does not include any facts establishing that Plaintiff is entitled to receive disability benefits, why the disability benefits were denied, or why this denial of benefits was wrongful. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a facially plausible claim for relief. The Complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Because Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies outlined above. Any such amended complaint must be filed no later than October 29, 2012.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff wishes to renew his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, he must file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________
HON ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge