1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANESSA D.,1 Case No.: 3:25-cv-00108-VET
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 10] 17 18 19
21 22 23 24 25
26 27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2022)] will refer to any non-government parties by 28 1 On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff Vanessa D. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, seeking 2 judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final decision 3 denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits (“Complaint”). Doc. 4 No. 1. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without 5 Prepaying Fees or Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 10 (“IFP Application”).2 For 6 the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the IFP Application and DISMISSES the 7 Complaint with leave to amend. 8 I. DISCUSSION 9 A. IFP Application 10 Except for writ of habeas corpus applications, all parties instituting a civil action, 11 suit, or proceeding in a United States district court must pay a filing fee of $405.3 See 28 12 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without paying the filing fee only if the party is 13 granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th 14 Cir. 1999). 15 To proceed IFP, an applicant does not need to be “absolutely destitute” but must 16 adequately prove her indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 17 339–40 (1948). To that end, an applicant must provide the Court with a signed affidavit 18 “that includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give 19 security.” CivLR 3.2.a. The affidavit proving indigence should allege “that the affiant 20 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 21
22 23 2 Plaintiff filed an initial Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs but failed to sign it. See Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff withdrew this initial application, 24 see Doc. No. 8, and re-filed the instant IFP Application. 25 3 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also U.S. COURTS, DISTRICT COURT 26 MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), available at 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee- schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave 28 1 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also Jefferson v. 2 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (an adequate affidavit should state 3 supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is 4 “set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 5 earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP 6 requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general 7 benchmark of “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony 8 v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate 9 indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on 10 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 11 1974). 12 Here, Plaintiff demonstrates that she is entitled to IFP status. In support of the IFP 13 Application, Plaintiff represents that her primary income over the past year was public 14 assistance at $930 per month with another monthly $482 from an unspecified source. Doc. 15 No. 10 at 2. She notes that the same income is expected the next month. Id. Plaintiff lists 16 no employment history in the prior two years and her only asset is a 2011 Toyota Corolla 17 with an estimated value of $5,000. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff’s reported monthly expenses are 18 rent, food, transportation, medication, and some recreation estimated to total $1,074 per 19 month. Id. at 5. While Plaintiff appears to have a positive remaining monthly balance of 20 $338, this balance is based upon very conservative expenses and is considerably less than 21 the Court’s filing fee. Therefore, considering the information in the affidavit, the Court 22 finds that Plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the $405 filing fee under Section 23 1915(a). 24 B. Mandatory Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 25 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 26 by the Court under Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 27 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all [IFP] complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”); 28 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”) (internal citation omitted). Social Security 2 appeals are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12- 3 cv-00973-SMS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90042, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening 4 is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 5 Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). Pursuant to Section 6 1915(e), a complaint should be dismissed sua sponte if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” 7 (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief 8 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 9 203 F.3d at 1126. 10 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Complaint is not frivolous or malicious. 11 Nor does it seek relief against a defendant who is immune. Plaintiff identifies a decision 12 issued by the Commissioner that she seeks to appeal, a summary basis for the appeal, and 13 a valid statutory basis for the Complaint. Doc. No. 1 at 1–3. Further, the Commissioner is 14 not immune from the relief requested, namely reversal of the Commissioner’s decision or 15 remand for further administrative proceedings.
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 VANESSA D.,1 Case No.: 3:25-cv-00108-VET
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 10] 17 18 19
21 22 23 24 25
26 27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2022)] will refer to any non-government parties by 28 1 On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff Vanessa D. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, seeking 2 judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final decision 3 denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits (“Complaint”). Doc. 4 No. 1. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without 5 Prepaying Fees or Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 10 (“IFP Application”).2 For 6 the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the IFP Application and DISMISSES the 7 Complaint with leave to amend. 8 I. DISCUSSION 9 A. IFP Application 10 Except for writ of habeas corpus applications, all parties instituting a civil action, 11 suit, or proceeding in a United States district court must pay a filing fee of $405.3 See 28 12 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without paying the filing fee only if the party is 13 granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th 14 Cir. 1999). 15 To proceed IFP, an applicant does not need to be “absolutely destitute” but must 16 adequately prove her indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 17 339–40 (1948). To that end, an applicant must provide the Court with a signed affidavit 18 “that includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give 19 security.” CivLR 3.2.a. The affidavit proving indigence should allege “that the affiant 20 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 21
22 23 2 Plaintiff filed an initial Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs but failed to sign it. See Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff withdrew this initial application, 24 see Doc. No. 8, and re-filed the instant IFP Application. 25 3 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also U.S. COURTS, DISTRICT COURT 26 MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), available at 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee- schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave 28 1 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also Jefferson v. 2 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (an adequate affidavit should state 3 supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is 4 “set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 5 earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP 6 requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general 7 benchmark of “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony 8 v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate 9 indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on 10 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 11 1974). 12 Here, Plaintiff demonstrates that she is entitled to IFP status. In support of the IFP 13 Application, Plaintiff represents that her primary income over the past year was public 14 assistance at $930 per month with another monthly $482 from an unspecified source. Doc. 15 No. 10 at 2. She notes that the same income is expected the next month. Id. Plaintiff lists 16 no employment history in the prior two years and her only asset is a 2011 Toyota Corolla 17 with an estimated value of $5,000. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff’s reported monthly expenses are 18 rent, food, transportation, medication, and some recreation estimated to total $1,074 per 19 month. Id. at 5. While Plaintiff appears to have a positive remaining monthly balance of 20 $338, this balance is based upon very conservative expenses and is considerably less than 21 the Court’s filing fee. Therefore, considering the information in the affidavit, the Court 22 finds that Plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the $405 filing fee under Section 23 1915(a). 24 B. Mandatory Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 25 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 26 by the Court under Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 27 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all [IFP] complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”); 28 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”) (internal citation omitted). Social Security 2 appeals are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12- 3 cv-00973-SMS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90042, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening 4 is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 5 Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). Pursuant to Section 6 1915(e), a complaint should be dismissed sua sponte if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” 7 (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief 8 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 9 203 F.3d at 1126. 10 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Complaint is not frivolous or malicious. 11 Nor does it seek relief against a defendant who is immune. Plaintiff identifies a decision 12 issued by the Commissioner that she seeks to appeal, a summary basis for the appeal, and 13 a valid statutory basis for the Complaint. Doc. No. 1 at 1–3. Further, the Commissioner is 14 not immune from the relief requested, namely reversal of the Commissioner’s decision or 15 remand for further administrative proceedings. To the contrary, the Social Security Act 16 expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the Commissioner of 17 Social Security made after a hearing on which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42 U.S.C. 18 § 405(g). 19 Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context- 20 specific task. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The pleading standard governing 21 most civil actions is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which provides that 22 a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 23 is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). However, in the context of a Social Security 24 action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for 25 Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) to determine 26 whether the Complaint states a claim for relief. See Supplemental Rule 1(a) (“These rules 27 govern an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review on the record of a final decision of 28 the Commissioner of Social Security that presents only an individual claim.”); see also 1 2022 Advisory Committee Note to Supplemental Rules (noting that Supplemental Rules 2, 2 3, 4, and 5 supersede the corresponding rules on pleading, service, and presenting the action 3 for decision); see also Randy M. v. O’Malley, No. 24-cv-03396-PHK, 2024 U.S. Dist. 4 LEXIS 111956, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2024) (“Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the 5 currently applicable minimum pleading requirements for Social Security complaints under 6 these Supplemental Rules.”); Landon H. v. O’Malley, No. 24-cv-0991-DEB, 2024 U.S. 7 Dist. LEXIS 108200, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2024) (applying Supplemental Rule 2 to 8 Social Security complaint). 9 Specifically, Supplemental Rule 2 states that a complaint appealing the decision of 10 the Commissioner must: 11 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 12 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 13 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 14 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 15 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 16 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Further, a complaint “may include a short and plain 17 statement of the grounds for relief.” Supplemental Rule 2(b)(2). 18 Here, Plaintiff meets four of the five pleading requirements in Supplemental Rule 2. 19 First, Plaintiff identifies Section 405(g) in the caption of the Complaint. Doc. No. 1 at 1. 20 Second, Plaintiff identifies both the relevant Beneficiary Notice Control Number provided 21 by the Commissioner and the final decision of the Commissioner subject to review. Id. at 22 1–3. Third, Plaintiff provides her name and states that she resides in San Ysidro, CA, a city 23 within San Diego County and within this Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 1. Fourth, Plaintiff 24 states the type of benefits claimed, namely Supplemental Security Income benefits. Id. at 25 2. The Complaint, however, fails to name the person on whose wage record benefits are 26 claimed, or alternatively specify that Plaintiff is claiming benefits on her own wage record. 27 When a plaintiff fails to meet the mandatory pleading requirements of Supplemental 28 Rule 2, leave to amend, not dismissal, is appropriate. See 2022 Advisory Committee Note 1 Supplemental Rules. Thus, the Court finds that the Complaint does not survive screening 2 ||under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application. Doc. No. 5 || 10. And following mandatory screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court DISMISSES the 6 ||Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before 7 || February 21, 2025. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. (rr Sh 10 Dated: February 10, 2025 Honorable Valerie E. Torres 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28