1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER F.,1 Case No.: 3:24-cv-00432-VET
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 2] 17 18 19 20 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 I. INTRODUCTION 2 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher F. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, seeking 3 judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final 4 administrative decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits 5 (“Complaint”). Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 6 (“IFP Motion”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 2. For the reasons stated below, the 7 Court GRANTS the IFP Motion and DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 A. IFP Motion 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 $405.2 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez 14 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 15 To proceed IFP, an applicant does not need to be “absolutely destitute” but must 16 adequately prove his 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, 21 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also Jefferson v. 22 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (an adequate affidavit should state 23
24 25 2 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 to proceed IFP. Id. 1 supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is 2 “set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 3 earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP 4 requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general 5 benchmark of “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony 6 v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate 7 indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on 8 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 9 1974). 10 Here, Plaintiff demonstrates he is entitled to IFP status. In support of the IFP Motion, 11 Plaintiff does not list any employment history, and otherwise has limited income and assets. 12 Doc. No. 2. at 2–5. His affidavit shows he receives $2600.00 in monthly state disability 13 benefits and lists his 2018 Toyota Tacoma as his only asset. Id. at 3, 4. Plaintiff’s monthly 14 expenses include $1200.00 for rent and utilities, $850.00 for food, $100.00 for 15 transportation, and $500.00 for motor vehicle insurance. Id. at 5. After Plaintiff’s total 16 monthly expenses, he has a net loss of $50.00. Plaintiff further states that he lives with his 17 brother and mother and is unable to work. Id. at 6. Considering the information in the 18 affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the $405 filing fee 19 under § 1915(a). 20 B. Mandatory Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 21 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 22 by the Court under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 (“section 1915(e) applies to all [IFP] complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”); 24 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”) (internal citation omitted). Social Security 26 appeals are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12- 27 cv-00973-SMS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90042 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening 28 is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 1 Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). Pursuant to § 1915(e), a 2 complaint should be dismissed sua sponte if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) “fails to 3 state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 4 defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 203 F.3d 5 at 1126. 6 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Complaint is not frivolous or malicious. 7 Nor does it seek relief against a defendant who is immune. Plaintiff identifies a decision 8 issued by the Commissioner that he seeks to appeal, a summary basis for the appeal, and a 9 valid statutory basis for the Complaint. Doc. No. 1 at 1–2. Further, the Commissioner is 10 not immune from the relief requested, namely reversal of the Commissioner’s decision or 11 remand for further administrative proceedings. To the contrary, the Social Security Act 12 expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the Commissioner of 13 Social Security made after a hearing on which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42 U.S.C. 14
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 CHRISTOPHER F.,1 Case No.: 3:24-cv-00432-VET
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 2] 17 18 19 20 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 I. INTRODUCTION 2 On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher F. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, seeking 3 judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final 4 administrative decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits 5 (“Complaint”). Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 6 (“IFP Motion”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 2. For the reasons stated below, the 7 Court GRANTS the IFP Motion and DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 A. IFP Motion 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 $405.2 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez 14 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 15 To proceed IFP, an applicant does not need to be “absolutely destitute” but must 16 adequately prove his 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, 21 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also Jefferson v. 22 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (an adequate affidavit should state 23
24 25 2 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 to proceed IFP. Id. 1 supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is 2 “set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 3 earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP 4 requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general 5 benchmark of “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony 6 v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate 7 indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on 8 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 9 1974). 10 Here, Plaintiff demonstrates he is entitled to IFP status. In support of the IFP Motion, 11 Plaintiff does not list any employment history, and otherwise has limited income and assets. 12 Doc. No. 2. at 2–5. His affidavit shows he receives $2600.00 in monthly state disability 13 benefits and lists his 2018 Toyota Tacoma as his only asset. Id. at 3, 4. Plaintiff’s monthly 14 expenses include $1200.00 for rent and utilities, $850.00 for food, $100.00 for 15 transportation, and $500.00 for motor vehicle insurance. Id. at 5. After Plaintiff’s total 16 monthly expenses, he has a net loss of $50.00. Plaintiff further states that he lives with his 17 brother and mother and is unable to work. Id. at 6. Considering the information in the 18 affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the $405 filing fee 19 under § 1915(a). 20 B. Mandatory Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 21 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 22 by the Court under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 (“section 1915(e) applies to all [IFP] complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”); 24 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”) (internal citation omitted). Social Security 26 appeals are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12- 27 cv-00973-SMS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90042 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening 28 is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 1 Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). Pursuant to § 1915(e), a 2 complaint should be dismissed sua sponte if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) “fails to 3 state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 4 defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 203 F.3d 5 at 1126. 6 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Complaint is not frivolous or malicious. 7 Nor does it seek relief against a defendant who is immune. Plaintiff identifies a decision 8 issued by the Commissioner that he seeks to appeal, a summary basis for the appeal, and a 9 valid statutory basis for the Complaint. Doc. No. 1 at 1–2. Further, the Commissioner is 10 not immune from the relief requested, namely reversal of the Commissioner’s decision or 11 remand for further administrative proceedings. To the contrary, the Social Security Act 12 expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the Commissioner of 13 Social Security made after a hearing on which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42 U.S.C. 14 § 405(g). 15 Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context- 16 specific task. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The pleading standard governing 17 most civil actions is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which provides that 18 a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 19 is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). However, in the context of a Social Security 20 action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for 21 Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) to determine 22 whether the Complaint states a claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 1(a) 23 (“These rules govern an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review on the record of a final 24 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that presents only an individual claim.”); 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2 Committee Note (noting that Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, 26 and 5 supersede the corresponding rules on pleading, service, and presenting the action for 27 decision); see also Randy M. v. O’Malley, No. 24-cv-03396-PHK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28 111956, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2024) (“Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the currently 1 applicable minimum pleading requirements for Social Security complaints under these 2 Supplemental Rules.”); Landon H. v. O’Malley, No. 24-cv-0991-DEB, 2024 U.S. Dist. 3 LEXIS 108200, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2024) (applying Supplemental Rule 2 to Social 4 Security complaint). 5 Specifically, Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules states that a complaint appealing the 6 decision of the Commissioner must: 7 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 8 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 9 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 10 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 11 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Further, a complaint “may include a short 13 and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp SS Rule 2(b)(2). 14 Here, Plaintiff meets four of the five pleading requirements in Supplemental Rule 2. 15 First, Plaintiff states that he brings this action pursuant to § 405.3 Doc. No. 1 at 1. Second, 16 Plaintiff identifies both the relevant Beneficiary Notice Control Number provided by the 17 Commissioner and the final decision of the Commissioner subject to review. Id. at 2. Third, 18 Plaintiff provides his name and county of residence. Id. Fourth, Plaintiff states the type of 19 benefits claimed, namely Title II Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. Id. The 20 Complaint, however, fails to name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed, 21 or alternatively specify that he is claiming benefits on his own wage record. 22 When a plaintiff fails to meet the mandatory pleading requirements of Supplemental 23 Rule 2, leave to amend, not dismissal, is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2 24 Committee Note. Thus, the Court finds that the Complaint does not survive screening under 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend. 26 27 3 While Plaintiff did not specify subdivision (g), the Court finds that pleading § 405 is 28 sufficiently specific to meet Supplemental Rule 2. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Motion. Doc. No. 2. 3 || And following mandatory screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court DISMISSES the 4 ||Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before 5 || August 20, 2024. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: August 6, 2024 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28