Hastie-Sanders v. O'Malley

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 17, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00991
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANDON H., Case No.: 24-cv-0991-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 15

16 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 3] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Landon H.’s application to proceed with his complaint 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 Dkt. No. 3. 20 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 21 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if 22 the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all assets, showing he is unable 23 to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as to [the] 24 affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. 25 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 26 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). An affidavit is sufficient if it shows the affiant cannot pay the 27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last 28 1 fee “and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 2 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 3 Plaintiff is challenging the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits 4 and Supplemental Security Income. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff is unemployed and has no income 5 or assets. Dkt. No. 3. He lives with his mother who pays for all household expenses, 6 including food. Id. at 5.2 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown he lacks the financial 8 resources to pay the filing fee. The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to 9 proceed IFP. 10 II. Screening the Complaint 11 The Court next turns to screening Plaintiff’s complaint. See Michael Edward M. v. 12 Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-1138-RBM-AHG, 2023 WL 5955302, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023) 13 (“Social Security appeals are not exempt from this [28 U.S.C. § 1915] screening 14 requirement.”) (citations omitted). 15 Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social 16 Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) require a complaint to 17 include the following information: 18 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); 19 (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 20 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are 21 claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 22 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 23 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Rule 2(b)(2) further states a complaint “may 25 include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” 26 27

28 | Plaintiff's complaint satisfies Rule 2(b)’s pleading requirements. Dkt. No. 1. It states 2 II this case is on appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); identifies the Commissioner’s final 3 Il decision as the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) unfavorable decision; provides his + || name and states he resides in San Diego County; states he is claiming benefits on his own 5 wage record; and states he is claiming disability insurance benefits and Supplemental 6 Security Income. /d. at 1-3. Plaintiff further alleges the ALJ’s “finding that there was 7 || medical improvement is not supported by substantial evidence” and the ALJ “failed to 8 properly weigh the opinion of Dr. Liederman.” /d. at 3. Finally, there is no indication 9 || Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be 10 granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See IT U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 12 III. Conclusion 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to 14 || Proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 3). 15 In accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules, and this District’s General 16 Order 747, a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security 17 || Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern 18 || District of California office in lieu of service of a summons. No further action by Plaintiff 19 |l is needed to effect service of the complaint, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the 20 || notice of electronic filing of the complaint to Defendant. See Dkt. No. 5 (“The Notice of 21 ||Electronic Filing of the complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for 22 || service of the complaint. The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil 23 4.”). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: June 17, 2024 a8 26 wuld Honorable Daniel E. Butcher 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28