1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORRAINE FREEMAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00035-ADA-CDB (SS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 v. DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ORDER, AND CONSENT OR REQUEST SECURITY, FOR REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 16) 16 17 18 Lorraine Freeman (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action seeking review of the final 19 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits on January 6, 2023. 20 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s 22 originally filed application did not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine 23 whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP, and on January 10, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff 24 to file a long form IFP application. (ECF No. 3.) On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a long form 25 IFP application. (ECF No. 4.) Upon review of the long form IFP application, and the pleadings 26 in her complaint, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 27 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis In order to proceed in court without prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must submit an 1 affidavit demonstrating that she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege and not a 3 right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198 4 n.2 (1993); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“permission to proceed in 5 forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does 6 not violate the applicant’s right to due process”) (emphasis added). A plaintiff need not be 7 absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis and the application is sufficient if it states that 8 due to her poverty, she is unable to pay the costs and still be able to provide herself and her 9 dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 10 339 (1948). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed without prepayment of fees is an 11 exercise of the district court’s discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 12 2015). 13 II. Screening Requirement 14 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 15 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails 16 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant 17 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous 18 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not 19 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 20 25, 32-33 (1992). 21 III. Pleading Standards 22 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 23 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief 24 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the 26 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 27 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8: 1 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 2 will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 5 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further, 6 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 8 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin 9 to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely 10 consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.” 11 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 13 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are 14 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint 15 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 16 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 17 IV. Discussion and Analysis 18 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying 19 disability benefits. (ECF No. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 20 405(g), which provides:
21 Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review 22 of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. 23 Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business…The 24 court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of 25 Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
26 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 27 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORRAINE FREEMAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00035-ADA-CDB (SS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 v. DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ORDER, AND CONSENT OR REQUEST SECURITY, FOR REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 16) 16 17 18 Lorraine Freeman (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action seeking review of the final 19 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits on January 6, 2023. 20 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s 22 originally filed application did not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine 23 whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP, and on January 10, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff 24 to file a long form IFP application. (ECF No. 3.) On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a long form 25 IFP application. (ECF No. 4.) Upon review of the long form IFP application, and the pleadings 26 in her complaint, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 27 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis In order to proceed in court without prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must submit an 1 affidavit demonstrating that she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege and not a 3 right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198 4 n.2 (1993); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“permission to proceed in 5 forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does 6 not violate the applicant’s right to due process”) (emphasis added). A plaintiff need not be 7 absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis and the application is sufficient if it states that 8 due to her poverty, she is unable to pay the costs and still be able to provide herself and her 9 dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 10 339 (1948). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed without prepayment of fees is an 11 exercise of the district court’s discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 12 2015). 13 II. Screening Requirement 14 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the 15 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails 16 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant 17 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous 18 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not 19 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 20 25, 32-33 (1992). 21 III. Pleading Standards 22 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 23 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief 24 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 8(a). The purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the 26 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 27 (2002). As set forth by the Supreme Court, Rule 8: 1 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 2 will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 5 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further, 6 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 8 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin 9 to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely 10 consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.” 11 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth 13 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are 14 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint 15 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 16 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 17 IV. Discussion and Analysis 18 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying 19 disability benefits. (ECF No. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 20 405(g), which provides:
21 Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review 22 of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow. 23 Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business…The 24 court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of 25 Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
26 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be 27 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). 1 Plaintiff alleges the Appeals Council issued a notice denying a request for review of the 2 decision on September 19, 2022, after which Plaintiff had 60 days, plus five days for delivery by 3 mail, to file a civil action (ECF No. 1 ⁋ 2). The Appeals Council also granted Plaintiff a 30-day 4 extension to file a civil action which extended the filing deadline to January 12, 2023. Id. Thus, 5 Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff states that she resides in the County of Mariposa. Id. at 6 ⁋ 4. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action. 7 A. Plaintiff’s IFP Application 8 In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty threshold under Section 9 1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department 10 of Health and Human Services. See, e.g., Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:18-CV- 11 01163-LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018); Calderon v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:22-CV-00890-SAB, 2022 WL 3088494, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 13 Jul. 27, 2022); Trimm v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:22-CV-00663-BAM, 2022 WL 14 2239701, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022) (collecting cases). The 2023 Poverty Guidelines for the 15 48 contiguous states provides that the poverty threshold for a household of one is $14,580.00.1 16 In the originally filed application, Plaintiff represented that she is not employed and last 17 worked in 2010. Plaintiff further represented that she receives a Social Security retirement of 18 $1,410.00 per month as well as a “Safeway Retirement” for $371.00 per month. Plaintiff indicated 19 that she has $200.00 in a checking account and owns a 2001 Ford Taurus with an estimated value 20 of $500.00. (ECF No. 2.) 21 In the newly filed long form application, Plaintiff represents that she: (1) receives a monthly 22 income of $1,924.49 from her retirement; (2) has $215.00 between two checking accounts; (3) 23 owns the 2001 Ford Taurus and; (4) owns a mortgage-free residence she values at $159,000. (ECF 24 No. 6, pp. 1-3). 25 Plaintiff represents that her monthly expenses include: (1) utility costs of $510.00; (2) home 26 maintenance costs of $150.00; (3) food costs of $400.00; (4) clothing costs of $ 100.00; (5) laundry 27
1See HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2023 https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last 1 | and dry-cleaning costs of $50.00; (6) medical and dental expenses of $100.00; (7) transportation 2 | costs of $150.00; (8) recreation expenses of $50.00; (9) insurance costs for $200.00 and; (10) 3 | property taxes of $133.00. Plaintiffs’ total monthly expenses amount to $1,843.00. Jd. at 4-5. 4 The completed long form application reflects that although Plaintiff is above the poverty 5 | line, her net monthly income is barely positive after expenses. Although some expenses appear 6 | high, they do not appear exorbitant or implausible. While Plaintiff does not appear to be totally 7 | destitute, Plaintiff's long form application indicates that her financial situation is fragile enough 8 | that payment of the $402.00 filing fee would have an adverse impact on her necessities of daily 9 | life. 10 | V. Conclusion and Order 11 Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision 12 | denying Social Security benefits. Plaintiff’s IFP application also demonstrates that she cannot pay 13 | the filing fee without negatively affecting her necessities of daily life. 14 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in 15 | forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 6) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the 16 | following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or Request for 17 | Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: February 10, 2023 | br Pr 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28