Case No. 2:16-cv-02932-APG-GWF.

ALICIA C. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Nature of Suit: 864 Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alicia C Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Cyrus Safa , Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing.


Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1)

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on December 17, 2016.


Plaintiff alleges a claim against the Social Security Administration (SSA), challenging its denial of social security disability benefits. Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant to this action, she was disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. Plaintiff claims that the Social Security Commissioner, initially and upon reconsideration, denied her requests for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Plaintiff states that she timely requested review of the ALJ's decision with the Appeals Council, which was denied on October 20, 2016. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that final agency decision.


I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit to her application and complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having reviewed Plaintiff's financial affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pre-pay the filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is granted.

II. Complaint

Plaintiff brings suit against the SSA alleging she was wrongfully denied social security disability benefits. Federal courts only have jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of the SSA's final decisions. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Cilifano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09 (1977). Plaintiff appears to have fully exhausted her administrative remedies with the SSA. The Court will therefore allow Plaintiff's complaint to proceed as a petition for judicial review of a final agency decision. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the full filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration by sending a copy of summons and Complaint by certified mail to: (1) Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX, Social Security Administration, 160 Spear Street, Suite 899, San Francisco, California 94105, and (2) the Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20530.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue summons to the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada, and deliver the summons and Complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have sixty (60) days from the date of service to file their answer or responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or their attorney if they have retained one, a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendant or their counsel. The court may disregard any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk which fails to include a certificate of service.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases