Melody Lachelli v. Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center

D. Arizona

Melody Lachelli v. Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center

DecidedFebruary 4, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-00552

StatusUnknown

This text of Melody Lachelli v. Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center (Melody Lachelli v. Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melody Lachelli v. Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center, (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Melody Lachelli, No. CV-26-00552-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This case was transferred to this Court from another district. (Doc. 5). A motion to 16 proceed in forma pauperis is pending. (Doc. 2). 17 In short summary, in her complaint, Plaintiff seeks from Medicare $2,463.28 in 18 reimbursement of medical expenses arising from a car accident. (Doc. 4). The only way 19 to bring such a claim in district court is: “The third sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), made 20 applicable to the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii, provides that § 405(g), to the 21 exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising 22 under’ the Medicare Act.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614–15 (1984). 42 U.S.C. § 23 405(g) states in relevant part, “Such action shall be brought in the district court of the 24 United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides….” This case was 25 transferred to this Court because Plaintiff lives in this district. (Doc. 5). 26 I. Legal Standards 27 A. Ability to Pay 28 “There is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when 1 someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 2 (9th Cir. 2015). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges 3 that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. at 1234 4 (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). 5 B. Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

6 Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that 7 the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 8 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines 9 how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies 10 to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all 11 in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 12 that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 13 14 Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005). 15 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 17 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in 18 the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 19 20 Hairston v. Juarez, No. 22-CV-01801-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 21 Mar. 10, 2023). 22 Because Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will screen the 23 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. 24 II. Discussion 25 A. Ability to Pay 26 Plaintiff states that she receives $1,395.00 per month in disability payments. 27 Plaintiff also claims she makes $1,100 per month working for DoorDash. (Doc. 2). Thus, 28 Plaintiff receives $2,495.00 per month. Plaintiff claims her fixed expenses are 1 approximately $2,000.00 per month with the remainder going to “food, toiletries, and pet 2 care.” (Id.). The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee and continue to afford 3 life’s necessities. Thus, the Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 B. Screening 5 In her narrative complaint, which is 47 pages including exhibits, Plaintiff alleges 6 that she has previously made a claim with Medicare for reimbursement of her medical 7 expenses, but that her claim was denied. (Doc. 4 at 7). Plaintiff suggests her claim was 8 denied because it was untimely. (Id.). She claims she was untimely due to misinformation. 9 (Id.). 10 In general, Plaintiff appears to seek judicial review of the agency’s decision denying 11 her claim. This states a claim sufficient to survive screening. However, the Court allows 12 the claim to proceed without prejudice to Defendant making any motions it deems 13 appropriate. See Coleman v. Maldnado, 564 F. App’x 893, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (a district 14 court may properly grant a motion to dismiss despite a prior screening order finding the 15 complaint stated a claim); Jones v. Sullivan, 19-CV-0025BKSCFH, 2020 WL 5792989, at 16 *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020) (“A court’s initial screening under § 1915(e) and/or § 1915A 17 does not preclude a later dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”). 18 III. Conclusion 19 Based on the foregoing, 20 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must serve the summons, complaint 2|| and a copy of this Order on Defendant within the time set by Federal Rule of Civil || Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff may either serve the complaint through her own means or file a 4|| motion asking for service by the U.S. Marshals. Any motion for Marshal service must be || filed within 14 days of the date of this Order. 6 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026. 7 8 '

10 James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Melody Lachelli, No. CV-26-00552-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This case was transferred to this Court from another district. (Doc. 5). A motion to 16 proceed in forma pauperis is pending. (Doc. 2). 17 In short summary, in her complaint, Plaintiff seeks from Medicare $2,463.28 in 18 reimbursement of medical expenses arising from a car accident. (Doc. 4). The only way 19 to bring such a claim in district court is: “The third sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), made 20 applicable to the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii, provides that § 405(g), to the 21 exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising 22 under’ the Medicare Act.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614–15 (1984). 42 U.S.C. § 23 405(g) states in relevant part, “Such action shall be brought in the district court of the 24 United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides….” This case was 25 transferred to this Court because Plaintiff lives in this district. (Doc. 5). 26 I. Legal Standards 27 A. Ability to Pay 28 “There is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when 1 someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 2 (9th Cir. 2015). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges 3 that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. at 1234 4 (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). 5 B. Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

6 Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that 7 the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 8 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines 9 how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies 10 to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all 11 in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 12 that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 13 14 Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005). 15 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 17 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in 18 the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 19 20 Hairston v. Juarez, No. 22-CV-01801-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 21 Mar. 10, 2023). 22 Because Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will screen the 23 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. 24 II. Discussion 25 A. Ability to Pay 26 Plaintiff states that she receives $1,395.00 per month in disability payments. 27 Plaintiff also claims she makes $1,100 per month working for DoorDash. (Doc. 2). Thus, 28 Plaintiff receives $2,495.00 per month. Plaintiff claims her fixed expenses are 1 approximately $2,000.00 per month with the remainder going to “food, toiletries, and pet 2 care.” (Id.). The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee and continue to afford 3 life’s necessities. Thus, the Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 B. Screening 5 In her narrative complaint, which is 47 pages including exhibits, Plaintiff alleges 6 that she has previously made a claim with Medicare for reimbursement of her medical 7 expenses, but that her claim was denied. (Doc. 4 at 7). Plaintiff suggests her claim was 8 denied because it was untimely. (Id.). She claims she was untimely due to misinformation. 9 (Id.). 10 In general, Plaintiff appears to seek judicial review of the agency’s decision denying 11 her claim. This states a claim sufficient to survive screening. However, the Court allows 12 the claim to proceed without prejudice to Defendant making any motions it deems 13 appropriate. See Coleman v. Maldnado, 564 F. App’x 893, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (a district 14 court may properly grant a motion to dismiss despite a prior screening order finding the 15 complaint stated a claim); Jones v. Sullivan, 19-CV-0025BKSCFH, 2020 WL 5792989, at 16 *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020) (“A court’s initial screening under § 1915(e) and/or § 1915A 17 does not preclude a later dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”). 18 III. Conclusion 19 Based on the foregoing, 20 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must serve the summons, complaint 2|| and a copy of this Order on Defendant within the time set by Federal Rule of Civil || Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff may either serve the complaint through her own means or file a 4|| motion asking for service by the U.S. Marshals. Any motion for Marshal service must be || filed within 14 days of the date of this Order. 6 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026. 7 8 '

10 James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melody Lachelli v. Medicare Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melody-lachelli-v-medicare-benefits-coordination-and-recovery-center-azd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack