Russell v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00020
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA RUSSELL, Case No.: 23-CV-20-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 19 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) 20 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as required when a 21 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the Complaint 22 sufficiently states a claim for relief. Thus, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion. 23 I. MOTION FOR IFP 24 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any 25 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 26 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 27 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 28 granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 2 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 3 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civ. L.R. 4 3.2.a. 5 Plaintiff’s only source of income is $677.001 per month in social security retirement 6 benefits and $200.00 per month in food stamps, and her expenses add up to $740.00 per 7 month. She also states she has not been employed within the past twelve months and has 8 $5.00 in her checking account and $0.75 in her savings account. The Court finds that 9 Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee. 10 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 12 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 13 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 14 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 15 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 16 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 19 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 20 that fails to state a claim.”). 21 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 22 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 23 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 24 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 25 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 26

27 1 Plaintiff notes that her social security retirement benefit will increase to $735.00 per 28 month beginning on January 16, 2023. (Doc. No. 3, 5.) 1 || merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 2 ||a plaintiff's pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 3 ||3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 4 || Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 5 ||forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 6 || 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 7 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 8 sufficiently but barely satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating points of 9 |lerror she assigns to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1 41-7.) 10 HI. CONCLUSION 11 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || DATED: January 11, 2023 UA) Ss— 15 Hon. William V. Gallo 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28