Hozi v. Social Security Administrative SSA

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00031
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUZAN HOZI, Case No.: 23-CV-31-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 19 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) 20 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as required when a 21 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds the Complaint 22 sufficiently states a claim for relief, but that Plaintiff’s instant motion fails to show an 23 inability to pay the filing fee. Thus, the Court DENIES the IFP motion. 24 I. MOTION FOR IFP 25 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any 26 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 27 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 28 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 1 granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 2 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 3 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 4 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civ. L.R. 5 3.2.a. 6 Plaintiff does not earn any income, but notes that her spouse has earned $66,250.00 7 in the past 12 months and that her spouse expects to earn $5,250.00 in income next month. 8 (Doc. No. 2, 1.) Plaintiff’s expenses add up to $5,800.00 per month. She also states she 9 has not been employed within the past twelve months. (Id., 2.) Plaintiff further notes her 10 home’s value is $650,000.00, and she owns a 2015 Nissan Altima with a value of 11 $8,800.00. (Doc. No. 2, 3.) She adds that she has $250.00 in her checking account and that 12 her spouse has $2,620 in their checking account. (Id.) The Court finds Plaintiff has failed 13 to show an inability to pay the filing fee. 14 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 15 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 16 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 17 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 18 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 19 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 20 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 23 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 24 that fails to state a claim.”). 25 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 26 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 27 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 28 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 1 || that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 2 || merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 3 plaintiffs pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 4 ||3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 5 ||Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 6 || forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 7 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 8 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 9 || sufficiently but barely satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating points of 10 || error she assigns to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1, 1-4.) 11 HI. CONCLUSION 12 The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || DATED: January 11, 2023 UM Ss 16 Hon. William V. Gallo 7 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28