ORDER (IFP App-Dkt. #1)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Robert E. Morris is proceeding in this action pro se, has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis, and submitted a Complaint (Dkt. #1) on March 26, 2014. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule IB 1-9.

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court will now review Plaintiff's Complaint.

II. Screening the Complaint

Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint pursuant to § 1915(a). Federal courts are given the authority dismiss a case if the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(a), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. Of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). 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); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Moreover, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from plausible to conceivable, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal).

Plaintiff's Complaint challenges a decision by the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits. Before Plaintiff can sue the SSA in federal court, he must exhaust his administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Bass v. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curium) ("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 a claimant's application for disability benefits, he can request reconsideration of the decision. If the claim is denied at the reconsideration level, 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 to review the ALJ's decision, a claimant may then request review by the United States District Court. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. Plaintiff alleges that, on February 4, 2014, the Appeals Council denied his request for review, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Thus, it appears Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.

Once Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, he can obtain review of a SSA decision denying benefits by commencing a civil action within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Id. This case was filed within that 60-day period. An action for judicial review of a determination by the SSA must be brought in a District Court of the United States for the judicial district in which the Plaintiff resides. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he resides in this District. The Complaint should contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of Plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. 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 decision to deny benefits is limited to determining: (a) whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Commissioner; and (b) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Morgan v. Commissioner of the Social Security Adm., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff's Complaint seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Supplemental Security Income benefits and requests the court reverse that decision, or alternatively, remand this matter for a new hearing. Plaintiff contends there is not substantial medical or vocational evidence in the record to support: (a) the legal conclusion he is not disabled withing the meaning of the Social Security Act; or (b) the Commissioner's finding that Plaintiff could perform substantial gainful activity. He asserts that the record supports a finding that Plaintiff is disabled and has been continuously disabled at all relevant times. Finally, Plaintiff alleges new evidence exists that warrants a remand of this matter for further proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a claim for initial screening purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that: