Reel v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00781
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 TARSA R., Case No.: 25-cv-0781-AGS-BLM

4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 5 v. IFP MOTION (ECF 2)

6 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, 7 Defendant. 8

9 Plaintiff moves to proceed without paying the court-filing fees in this Social Security 10 appeal. 11 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 12 $402 in filing fees.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 13 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without prepaying those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 14 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff here has an average monthly income of $342, which 15 is equal to plaintiff’s total monthly expenses. (ECF 2, at 2, 5.) Otherwise, plaintiff “cannot 16 work” and is “currently homeless.” (Id. at 5.) This suffices to show that plaintiff cannot 17 pay the filing fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 18 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 19 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must also screen the complaint and 20 dismiss it if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or seeks monetary relief 21 from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 22 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s 23 complaint must set forth sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the 24 Commissioner’s decision was incorrect. Namely, “to survive the 25

26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 28 1 || Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish that she has exhausted her 2 |}administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 3 |}commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” (2) “indicate the judicial 4 || district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of plaintiff's disability and when 5 || the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] the nature of the plaintiff’s 6 || disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show 7 || that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Kristen R. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-1715-AGS, 2022 WL 8 || 17573932, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022). 9 Plaintiff meets all four screening requirements. First, plaintiff exhausted 10 || administrative remedies and timely commenced this action given that (a) plaintiff’s “action 11 |/is an appeal from an administrative decision denying” plaintiffs claim and (b) plaintiff 12 || filed the complaint within sixty days of the final decision. (ECF 1, at 2; ECF 1-2, at 2.) 13 || Second, plaintiff resides in San Diego and “within this judicial district.” (ECF 1, at 2.) 14 || Third, plaintiff states the disability’s nature and start date: “medically severe impairments 15 lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, asthma, 16 |/right ankle pain secondary to history of right ankle fracture, depressive disorder vs. an 17 adjustment disorder, anxiety disorder, and history of borderline personality disorder,” 18 |}beginning on “July 21, 2023.” Cd.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of the 19 || disagreement with the final decision: its “findings of fact” “are not supported by substantial 20 ||evidence and are contrary to law and regulation,” and it “failed to comply with the 21 |/regulations in weighing the opinion evidence in this case, evaluating credibility, and 22 || supporting the finding of non-disability with substantial evidence.” (/d. at 3.) 23 These allegations survive the “low threshold” for § 1915(e) screening, and the court 24 ||GRANTS plaintiff's IFP motion. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 25 Dated: April 29, 2025 26 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 27 United States District Judge 28