Golden v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Dwight Maurice Golden, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03890-PHX-JZB
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE:
Pending before the Court Is Plaintiff Dwight Maurice Golden III’s “Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs” (“Application to Proceed IFP”)
(doc. 6). Because Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that he is unable to pay the
filing fee and other costs associated with this case, the Court will grant the Application.
The Court further recommends that the case be dismissed with leave to amend for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).1
1 This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to General Order 21-25, which
notes that:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be
appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, . . . that the Magistrate Judge
will prepare a Report and Recommendation for . . . Senior United States
District Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
General Order 21-25.
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 9 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP.
In his Application for Leave to Proceed IFP (doc. 6), Plaintiff declares under penalty
of perjury that he is unable to pay the filing fee and other costs associated with this case.
The Court, having determined that Plaintiff is unable to pay the Court’s fees, grants the
Request.
II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must screen complaints brought in forma
pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statutory screening is not limited to prisoners.
Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to any in forma pauperis application. See
Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court must dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint if it is: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). If the Court finds that dismissal is
required, it may dismiss the complaint with leave to amend “unless it determines that the
pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Doe v. U.S., 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.
1995)).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand
detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 9 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. In analyzing pro se
filings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts
must “construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
III. Discussion.
The main issue here is whether Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Dismissal is proper where “the complaint either (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2)
fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff fails on both points.
In his two-page Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) “has been discriminating me by giving me a hard time with the applications on
file.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) The hard time Plaintiff alleges, based on his Complaint, appears to be
that he “was on hold for over an hour and was told that the defendant could not take [his]
call multiple times.” (Id.) Plaintiff additionally alleges that he is “physically disabled at the
moment and not able to work due to physiological trauma[.]” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges
that “it is not fair for [Plaintiff and his child] to be treated differently from others and need
the public[’]s support on this matter.” (Id.)
These allegations utterly fail to establish a claim that the SSA has improperly denied
Plaintiff benefits or that the SSA has discriminated against Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has not
alleged how being placed on hold amounts to discrimination, nor provided a cognizable
legal theory—such as a claim of intentional discrimination under Title VI. Second, Plaintiff
does not provide any facts showing that the SSA denied his application, that an
administrative hearing has occurred, or that an unfavorable decision has been rendered in
an administrative proceeding. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to establish that he is in fact
disabled under the meaning of the Social Security Act.2 Because the Court will not upset
2 To be eligible for SSDI benefits, a claimant must show that:
(a) [they] suffer[] from a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 9 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an SSA disability determination unless that determination “contains legal error or is not
supported by substantial evidence,” Plaintiff has failed to state a Social Security Disability
Insurance benefits claim. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007).
In conclusion, even construing Plaintiff Golden’s Complaint liberally and affording
him “the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342, he fails to “state a claim that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Therefore, because Plaintiff Golden’s
Complaint is squarely a deficient, “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, the Court recommends that it be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months; and
(b) the impairment renders [them] incapable of performing the work that
[they] previously performed and incapable of performing any other
substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy.
Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). If
both elements are fulfilled, the claimant is disabled under the meaning of the Social
Security Act. Apfel, 180 F.3d at 1098.
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 9 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Dwight Maurice Golden III’s Application to
Proceed IFP (doc. 6) is GRANTED.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 1) be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The
parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and
Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b), 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days
within which to file a response to the objections.
Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the
district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the
Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the
findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2025.
Honorable John Z. Boyle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-03890-SHD-JZB Document 9 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 5