1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME B., Case No.: 19-cv-02431-JLB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of TO PROCEED IN FORMA Social Security, 15 PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2]; AND Defendant. 16 (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 17 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 18 19 20 21 22 On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff Jamie B. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 23 review of the denial of his claim for social security disability insurance and supplemental 24 security income benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the 25 complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) 26 For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 27 IFP; and (2) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave 28 to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 7 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 9 prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 10 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 11 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 12 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 13 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 14 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case- 15 by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty 16 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 17 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 18 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 19 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). An adequate 20 affidavit should also state supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and 21 certainty,” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Jefferson 22 v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)), so that the Court does not grant IFP 23 to an applicant who is “financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” 24 Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984); see also Alvarez v. Berryhill, 25
26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 28 1 No. 18-cv-2133 W (BGS), 2018 WL 6265021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) (noting that 2 courts often reject IFP applications when applicants “can pay the filing fee with acceptable 3 sacrifice to other expenses”). 4 Here, Plaintiff concedes that his only source of monthly income—$5,200 per month 5 in disability payments—covers all of his monthly expenses. (ECF No. 2 ¶¶ 1, 11.) These 6 monthly expenses appear to include a $3,300 mortgage payment (including taxes and 7 insurance), a $400 car payment for a 2016 vehicle, $900 for health, vehicle, and life 8 insurance, and $700 for home maintenance, food, and utilities. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) In addition to 9 being able to meet his monthly expenses, Plaintiff states that he has $500 in cash and $1,500 10 in his bank account. (Id. ¶ 4.) There is also no indication that Plaintiff has any dependents 11 who rely on him for support. (Id. ¶ 7.) Based on this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff 12 does not meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It appears that 13 Plaintiff can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses or savings. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 15 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 16 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 17 to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the Complaint 18 is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 19 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Glick v. Townsend, 677 F. App’x 22 323, 324 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Specifically, complaints in social security appeal cases 23 are subject to the Court’s § 1915(e) screening of IFP cases. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 24 12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (screening is 25 required “even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 26 Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”); Maryanne M. v. Saul, No. 27 3:19-cv-02008-AHG, 2019 WL 5894711, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019) (same); see also 28 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) not only permits but 1 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 2 claim”). 3 All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 4 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual 5 allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 6 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 7 678 (2009).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME B., Case No.: 19-cv-02431-JLB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of TO PROCEED IN FORMA Social Security, 15 PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2]; AND Defendant. 16 (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 17 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 18 19 20 21 22 On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff Jamie B. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 23 review of the denial of his claim for social security disability insurance and supplemental 24 security income benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the 25 complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) 26 For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 27 IFP; and (2) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave 28 to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 7 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 9 prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 10 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 11 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 12 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 13 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 14 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case- 15 by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty 16 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 17 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 18 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 19 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). An adequate 20 affidavit should also state supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and 21 certainty,” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Jefferson 22 v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)), so that the Court does not grant IFP 23 to an applicant who is “financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” 24 Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984); see also Alvarez v. Berryhill, 25
26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 28 1 No. 18-cv-2133 W (BGS), 2018 WL 6265021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) (noting that 2 courts often reject IFP applications when applicants “can pay the filing fee with acceptable 3 sacrifice to other expenses”). 4 Here, Plaintiff concedes that his only source of monthly income—$5,200 per month 5 in disability payments—covers all of his monthly expenses. (ECF No. 2 ¶¶ 1, 11.) These 6 monthly expenses appear to include a $3,300 mortgage payment (including taxes and 7 insurance), a $400 car payment for a 2016 vehicle, $900 for health, vehicle, and life 8 insurance, and $700 for home maintenance, food, and utilities. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) In addition to 9 being able to meet his monthly expenses, Plaintiff states that he has $500 in cash and $1,500 10 in his bank account. (Id. ¶ 4.) There is also no indication that Plaintiff has any dependents 11 who rely on him for support. (Id. ¶ 7.) Based on this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff 12 does not meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It appears that 13 Plaintiff can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses or savings. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 15 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 16 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 17 to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the Complaint 18 is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 19 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Glick v. Townsend, 677 F. App’x 22 323, 324 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Specifically, complaints in social security appeal cases 23 are subject to the Court’s § 1915(e) screening of IFP cases. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 24 12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (screening is 25 required “even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 26 Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”); Maryanne M. v. Saul, No. 27 3:19-cv-02008-AHG, 2019 WL 5894711, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019) (same); see also 28 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) not only permits but 1 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 2 claim”). 3 All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 4 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual 5 allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 6 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 7 678 (2009). A complaint in a social security appeal may differ in some ways from other 8 civil cases, but it is “not exempt from the general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 9 WL 2521753, at *2. 10 With respect to social security appeals, several courts in the Ninth Circuit have set 11 forth the following basic requirements for complaints to survive the Court’s § 1915(e) 12 screening: 13 First, the plaintiff must establish that [s]he has exhausted her administrative 14 remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 15 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. 16 Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain 17 a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s 18 disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 19 20 Montoya v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 21 2016) (citations omitted). 22 As for the fourth requirement, “[e]very plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 23 Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 24 2521753, at *3. Thus, a complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was 25 wrong or that “merely parrots the standards used in reversing or remanding a case” is 26 insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement. Montoya, 2016 WL 890922, at 27 *2; see also Cribbet v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-cv-01142-BAM, 2012 WL 5308044, 28 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012); Graves v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-00106-RFB, 2015 WL 1 357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 2 Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 3 forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 4 2521753, at *2; see also Harris v. Colvin, No. 14-cv-0383-GW (RNB), 2014 WL 1095941, 5 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (dismissing complaint which did not “specify . . . the 6 respects in which [the plaintiff] contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by 7 substantial evidence and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied”); Gutierrez v. 8 Astrue, No. 11-cv-00454-GSA, 2011 WL 1087261, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) 9 (dismissing complaint which did not “provide[] any substantive reasons” for appealing the 10 ALJ’s decision and did not “identif[y] any errors in [the] decision”). The plaintiff must 11 provide a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s 12 determination and must make a showing that he is entitled to relief, “in sufficient detail 13 such that the Court can understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can 14 meaningfully screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).” Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at 15 *2. 16 Here, Plaintiff contends that a reversal or remand of Defendant’s decision is 17 warranted because “the denial of [Plaintiff’s] disability claim is not supported by 18 substantial evidence under the standards set forth by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and all other 19 applicable laws and regulations, including the weight of the evidence, Plaintiff’s 20 credibility, the medical opinions of his doctors, and any and all other applicable evidentiary 21 issues, both in law and in fact.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) However, Plaintiff does not explain 22 which “evidentiary issues” are at issue or elaborate on the evidence that supports his 23 disability claim. These boilerplate allegations are precisely the type of conclusory 24 statements that fail to satisfy the federal pleading standard. See Maryanne M., 2019 WL 25 5894711, at *2 (dismissing with leave to amend identical boilerplate language). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Because Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim, the Court must DISMISS 2 || Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi). However, Plaintiff shall have twenty- 3 || eight (28) days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies discussed herein. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 6 || proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) To proceed with this lawsuit, Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing 7 \|fee at the time of filing any amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to submit a timely 8 || payment, this action will be subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 9 Further, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’ □ complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 10 || failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to 11 ||amend by April 7, 2020. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: March 10, 2020 14 □
16 n. Jill L. Burkhardt rited States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28