ORDER

(IFP App — ECF No. 1

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Dawn A. Wolgast has submitted an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) along with a proposed Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). This Application and Complaint are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

I. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Ms. Wolgast's Application includes the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") will be granted. The court will now review the proposed complaint.

II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT

A. Legal Standards

After granting a request to proceed IFP, federal courts must screen a complaint and any amended complaints before allowing a case to move forward, issuing summonses, and requiring a responsive pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Courts are required to dismiss an IFP action if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is legally "frivolous or malicious," or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915 is the same as the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). A screening under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).

A properly pled complaint must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff alleges factual content that allows the court to make a reasonable inference that a defendant is liable for the claim alleged. Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 678 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands "more than labels and conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Here, Ms. Wolgast challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying her disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Compl. ¶ 3. To state a valid benefits claim, a complaint must give the Commissioner fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations "to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively"). A plaintiff must present sufficient detail for the court to understand the disputed issues so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint. See 4 Soc. Sec. Law & Prac. § 56:4 (2016); 2 Soc. Sec. Disab. Claims Prac. & Proc. §§ 19:92-93 (2nd ed. 2015). To do so, a complaint should state when and how a plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies with the SSA and the nature of her disability, including the date she claims she became disabled. The complaint should also contain a short and concise statement identifying why the SSA's decision was wrong and showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Sabbia v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 669 F.Supp.2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2009), aff'd by 433 F. App'x 462 (7th Cir. 2011).

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Before a plaintiff can sue the SSA in federal court, she must exhaust her administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Section 405(g) provides that a civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the Secretary, and (2) the Secretary has made a final decision on the claim"). Generally, if the SSA denies an application for disability benefits, a claimant can request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied upon reconsideration, a claimant may request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). If the ALJ denies the claim, a claimant may request review of the decision by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council declines review, a claimant may then request review by the United States District Court. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. A civil action for judicial review must be filed within 60 days after receipt of the Appeals Council's notice of a final decision. Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 405.501. The SSA assumes that the notice of final decision will be received by mail within five days of the date on the notice unless shown otherwise. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1401, 422.210(c). Thus, an action commenced within 65 days is presumed timely. Id. If a claimant does not file a civil action within the allowed time frame, he or she loses the right to judicial review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(b). The civil action must be filed in the judicial district in which the claimant resides. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

In this case, Ms. Wolgast alleges that the Appeals Council denied the request for review on September 28, 2018, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Compl. ¶ 8. Thus, it appears she has exhausted her administrative remedies. She timely commenced this action as the Complaint was filed on November 15, 2018, and the Complaint indicates that she resides within the District of Nevada. Id. ¶ 1. Accordingly, Ms. Wolgast has satisfied these prerequisites for judicial review.

C. Grounds for Ms. Wolgast's Appeal

The Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision and asks the court to reverse that decision, or alternatively, to remand this matter for a new hearing. A district court can affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a decision if plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed a civil action. However, judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited to determining whether: (1) there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner's findings; and (2) the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).

In her Complaint, Ms. Wolgast alleges she has been disabled since from May 31, 2014, through September 30, 2016, the date last insured. Compl. ¶ 5. The ALJ found Wolgast to have the severe impairments of fibromyalgia, sarcoidosis, spinal degenerative disc disease, and obesity as a secondary factor. Id. ¶ 9(a). Despite her severe impairments, the ALJ determined Wolgast had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as follows:

Id. ¶ 9(b). The ALJ found that she could perform past relevant work as a telephone operator and data entry clerk. Id. ¶ 9(c).

Ms. Wolgast alleges the ALJ's decision lacks the support of substantial evidence for multiple reasons. The ALJ committed legal error by interpreting MRI imaging in functional terms without the help of a medical doctor and failing to articulate sufficient reasons for rejecting Wolgast's testimony concerning symptoms and level of limitation. Id. ¶ 9(e), (f). In addition, the ALJ's decision lacks the support of substantial evidence in finding that Wolgast's mental impairments do not constitute severe impairments or cause functional limitations. Id. ¶ 9(d). The Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to give the Commissioner fair notice of Ms. Wolgast's disagreement with the final decision. See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. Accordingly, her Complaint states a plausible claim for initial screening purposes.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED: