1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC RODGERS, Case No.: 21cv1534-NLS
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16
17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Cedric Rodgers’s complaint seeking judicial review of 20 the Social Security Administration’s decision and accompanying motion for leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. After due consideration and for the 22 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed IFP. 23 I. Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 24 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is subject 25 to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 26 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails 27 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 28 defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social security appeals 1 are not exempt from this § 1915(e) screening requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 2 1:12cv00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see also Calhoun 3 v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting section 1915(e)(2)(B) is 4 “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in 5 forma pauperis complaints”). 6 To pass screening, all complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the 7 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although 8 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 9 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. 10 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint in a social security appeal is “not exempt 11 from the general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. 12 Several courts within the Ninth Circuit have set forth the following basic 13 requirements for complaints to survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening: 14 First, the plaintiff must establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 15 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 16 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and 17 when the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must 18 contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security 19 Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 20 See, e.g., Montoya v. Colvin, No. 16cv00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. 21 Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases); Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB-NJK, 2015 22 WL 357121, *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (same). 23 As for the fourth requirement, “[e]very plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of 24 the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 25 2521753, at *3. Thus, a complaint merely stating that the Commissioner's decision was 26 wrong or that “merely parrots the standards used in reversing or remanding a case” is 27 insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement. See, e.g., Cribbet v. Comm’r 28 1 of Social Security, No. 12cv1142-BAM 2012 WL 5308044, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012); 2 Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *2. Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner’s 3 denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the 4 reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at 5 *2; see also Harris v. Colvin, No. 14cv383-GW (RNB), 2014 WL 1095941, *4 (C.D. 6 Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (dismissing complaint which did not “specify . . . the respects in 7 which [the plaintiff] contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial 8 evidence and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied”); Gutierrez v. Astrue, 9 No. 11cv454-GSA, 2011 WL 1087261, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) (dismissing 10 complaint which did not “provide[] any substantive reasons” for appealing the ALJ’s 11 decision and did not “identif[y] any errors in [the] decision”). The plaintiff must provide 12 a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security 13 Administration’s determination and must make a showing that she is entitled to relief, “in 14 sufficient detail such that the Court can understand the legal and/or factual issues in 15 dispute so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).” Graves, 16 2015 WL 357121, at *2. 17 With these standards in mind, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff 18 filed his claim for benefits in 2016. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 9. The ALJ denied him benefits, 19 Plaintiff appealed, and the Appeals Council reversed. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. On remand, the 20 ALJ again denied him benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred on 21 remand for the following reasons: (1) he did not give proper weight to treating physicians 22 under the pre-2017 rules; (2) he did not follow the Appeals Council’s instructions on 23 remand; (3) he improperly relied on lack of treatment as a deciding factor; (4) he did not 24 properly analyze Plaintiff’s pain and subjective symptoms; and (5) he relied on a decision 25 of a Certified Examiner that was based on an option that did not consider Plaintiff’s 26 treating documents. Id. at ¶¶ 22-26. The Court finds that the complaint has included 27 sufficient details in this regard to survive § 1915 screening. 28 // 1 II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 Having found that Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening, the Court turns to his 3 ability to proceed without payment of the required fees. It is well-settled that a party 4 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 5 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The determination of indigency falls within the 6 district court’s discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th 7 Cir. 1991) (noting “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its 8 sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement 9 of indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of 10 an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 11 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 12 Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC RODGERS, Case No.: 21cv1534-NLS
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16
17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Cedric Rodgers’s complaint seeking judicial review of 20 the Social Security Administration’s decision and accompanying motion for leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. After due consideration and for the 22 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed IFP. 23 I. Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 24 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is subject 25 to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 26 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails 27 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 28 defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social security appeals 1 are not exempt from this § 1915(e) screening requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 2 1:12cv00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see also Calhoun 3 v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting section 1915(e)(2)(B) is 4 “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in 5 forma pauperis complaints”). 6 To pass screening, all complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the 7 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although 8 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 9 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. 10 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint in a social security appeal is “not exempt 11 from the general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. 12 Several courts within the Ninth Circuit have set forth the following basic 13 requirements for complaints to survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening: 14 First, the plaintiff must establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 15 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 16 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and 17 when the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must 18 contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security 19 Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 20 See, e.g., Montoya v. Colvin, No. 16cv00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. 21 Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases); Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB-NJK, 2015 22 WL 357121, *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (same). 23 As for the fourth requirement, “[e]very plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of 24 the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 25 2521753, at *3. Thus, a complaint merely stating that the Commissioner's decision was 26 wrong or that “merely parrots the standards used in reversing or remanding a case” is 27 insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement. See, e.g., Cribbet v. Comm’r 28 1 of Social Security, No. 12cv1142-BAM 2012 WL 5308044, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012); 2 Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *2. Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner’s 3 denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the 4 reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at 5 *2; see also Harris v. Colvin, No. 14cv383-GW (RNB), 2014 WL 1095941, *4 (C.D. 6 Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (dismissing complaint which did not “specify . . . the respects in 7 which [the plaintiff] contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial 8 evidence and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied”); Gutierrez v. Astrue, 9 No. 11cv454-GSA, 2011 WL 1087261, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) (dismissing 10 complaint which did not “provide[] any substantive reasons” for appealing the ALJ’s 11 decision and did not “identif[y] any errors in [the] decision”). The plaintiff must provide 12 a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security 13 Administration’s determination and must make a showing that she is entitled to relief, “in 14 sufficient detail such that the Court can understand the legal and/or factual issues in 15 dispute so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).” Graves, 16 2015 WL 357121, at *2. 17 With these standards in mind, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff 18 filed his claim for benefits in 2016. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 9. The ALJ denied him benefits, 19 Plaintiff appealed, and the Appeals Council reversed. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. On remand, the 20 ALJ again denied him benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 20-21. Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred on 21 remand for the following reasons: (1) he did not give proper weight to treating physicians 22 under the pre-2017 rules; (2) he did not follow the Appeals Council’s instructions on 23 remand; (3) he improperly relied on lack of treatment as a deciding factor; (4) he did not 24 properly analyze Plaintiff’s pain and subjective symptoms; and (5) he relied on a decision 25 of a Certified Examiner that was based on an option that did not consider Plaintiff’s 26 treating documents. Id. at ¶¶ 22-26. The Court finds that the complaint has included 27 sufficient details in this regard to survive § 1915 screening. 28 // 1 II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 Having found that Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening, the Court turns to his 3 ability to proceed without payment of the required fees. It is well-settled that a party 4 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 5 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The determination of indigency falls within the 6 district court’s discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th 7 Cir. 1991) (noting “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its 8 sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement 9 of indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of 10 an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 11 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 12 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). At the same time, however, “the same even- 13 handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 14 underwrite, at public expense . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in 15 whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 16 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, the facts as to the litigant’s indigency must be stated “with 17 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 18 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 19 Here, Plaintiff states that he does not have a job and makes $0 in wages. ECF No. 20 2 at 1. He states that his only source of income is $150 in food stamps per month. Id. 21 Plaintiff has $100 in cash. Id. at 2. He does not own any cars, real estate, or other 22 valuable property. Id. He lives with his mother and has no other expenses. Id. 23 Upon review of Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 24 sufficiently shown that he is unable to pay the fees associated with commencing this 25 lawsuit. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 II. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, for the reasons as set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 3 || to proceed in forma pauperis and ORDERS as follows: 4 1. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) upon 5 Defendant and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 6 285. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this 7 Order and a certified copy of his Complaint and the summons. Upon receipt of 8 this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285 as completely 9 and accurately as possible, and to return it to the U.S. Marshal according to the 10 instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. 11 Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint and summons 12 upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the form. All costs of service shall be 13 advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 14 2. Defendant shall reply to the complaint within the time provided by the applicable 15 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) and consistent with Civil Local 16 Rule 7.1(e)(6). 17 3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, 18 upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document 19 submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original 20 paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in 21 which a true and correct copy of any document was served on the Defendant or 22 counsel of Defendant and the date of service. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 2, 2021 25 Mie. Lom 26 Hon. Nita L. Stormes 4 United States Magistrate Judge