Lee v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LEE, Case No.: 23-CV-1967-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. 16

17 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) 18 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. section1915(e), as required when 19 a litigant files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the Complaint 20 sufficiently states a claim for relief and that Plaintiff has sufficiently established his 21 inability to pay the initial filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion. 22 I. PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 23 As noted, Plaintiff’s instant Motion arises under 28 U.S.C. section 1915 (“Section 24 1915”). (Doc. No. 2.) As a general matter, a party instituting any civil action, suit, or 25 proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas 26 corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 27 despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only where the court grants plaintiff 28 1 leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. 2 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To that end, all actions sought to be filed in 3 forma pauperis pursuant to Section 1915 must be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by 4 the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes a statement of all assets which shows 5 inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civ. L.R. 3.2.a. 6 Here, Plaintiff’s only source of income is $756.00, which constitutes Plaintiff’s a 7 monthly Social Security allowance. Separately, Plaintiff reports that he has an outstanding 8 debt arising from unpaid state and federal taxes in an undisclosed amount. Plaintiff adds 9 that he has not been employed within the past twelve months and has no assets, including, 10 but not limited, an automobile, real estate, stocks, bonds, securities, trusts, jewelry, art 11 work, or any other financial instrument or thing of value. (Doc. No. 2. at 2.) Given these 12 factual circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to 13 pay the filing fee of $400. 14 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 15 Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), the Court must rule on its own motion to 16 dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 17 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 18 pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it 19 is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 20 monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 21 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 28 U.S.C. setion 22 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“[§] 1915(e) not only 23 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [in forma pauperis] complaint that fails 24 to state a claim.”). 25 Notably, security appeals are not exempt from the section 1915(e) screening 26 requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see 27 also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 28 complaints.”). “A [social security] complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s 1 decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy a plaintiffs pleading requirement.” 2 || Schwei v. Colvin, 2015 WL 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015); Hoagland, 2012 WL 3 |}2521753, at *3 (commenting “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 4 ||Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.”). Instead, “[a] complaint 5 || appealing the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement 6 || of facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 7 |{2012 WL 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 8 Based on its review of the operative Complaint here, the Court finds Plaintiff has 9 sufficiently satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating the fact-specitic 10 points of error he assigns to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who resolved his 11 || application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (“Act”). (Doc. No. 1 9§ 12 || 14-28.) Specifically, Plaintiff set forth the procedural history of the administrative 13 || proceedings underlying the Complaint, identified the issues before the ALJ, and itemized 14 || the purported fact-specific deficiencies Plaintiff attributes to the ALJ’s Notice of Decision. 15 || See id.) In light of Plaintiff's pleading, the Court finds Plaintiff has adequately presented 16 statement of facts explaining why the Commissioner of Social Security allegedly erred 17 denying Plaintiffs disability benefits application under the Act. Coupled with its holding 18 ||that Plaintiff has demonstrated his inability to pay the filing fee, the Court finds it 19 || appropriate that Plaintiff proceed in forma pauperis in this Action. Accordingly, the Court 20 || GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: November 8, 2023 = 2 Ky F A. 24 Hon. SteveB.Chu 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28