Olguin v. Saul

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 13, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00759
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA OLGUIN, Case No.: 20cv759-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of WITHOUT PREJUDICE Social Security, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 3] 16 17 18 On April 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 ECF No. 2. In this action, Plaintiff is seeking review and reversal of the final decision of 20 the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that denied Plaintiff’s claim for 21 disability benefits. ECF No. 1. All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in 22 a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must 23 pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a 24 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed in forma 25 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 26 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the 27 prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 28 showing that she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 1 Here, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit indicating that his sole source of income for 2 the last two years was from his employment at Mike’s BBQ for $601.00 per month. ECF 3 No. 2 at 2. However, Plaintiff has not been employed since January 26, 2019, and only has 4 one account with $69.28 in it. Id. at 2-4. It is not clear from Plaintiff’s application what his 5 expenses are. See id. Notwithstanding this, based on the above, the Court concludes that 6 Plaintiff’s application demonstrates he is unable to pay the requisite fees and costs. 7 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 8 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 9 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 10 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 12 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 13 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that “section 1915(e) not only 14 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 15 state a claim”). 16 All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 17 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 18 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 19 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 20 (citation omitted). In Social Security appeals, judges in this circuit have found that a 21 complaint challenging the denial of benefits must contain the following basic requirements 22 to satisfy the Court’s screening: 23 First, the plaintiff must establish that he has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 24 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 25 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and when 26 the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain 27 a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's 28 1 disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Montoya v. Colvin, No. 216CVO0454RFBNJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 3 2016). 4 Here, Plaintiff appeals the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff's claim for 5 disability benefits. ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff fails to state when he became disabled, 6 stating only that Plaintiff is “disabled due to a combination of severe physical and mental 7 impairments.” Id. As set forth above, this omission renders the complaint insufficient to 8 survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the ? Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff MAY 10 FILE an amended complaint on or before June 12, 2020. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the time provided, the Court may enter a final order dismissing this civil action with prejudice. IS IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Is Dated: May 13, 2020 _ Lo Ff | 16 Honorable Linda Lopez 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28