Opinion
Case No.: 21-cv-802-AGS
04-27-2021
Richard C., Plaintiff, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
(ECF 2)
Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without paying the initial filing fee, and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff's motion.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay a filing fee of $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). --------
Here, plaintiff owns no assets and receives $200 in food stamps and $676 in unemployment each month, for a total of $876. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) Plaintiff's household expenses are $1,563.99. (Id. at 4-5.) Because his unemployment does not cover his expenses, plaintiff's "mother helps [him] with the things [he] can not pay." (Id. at 3.) The Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening
When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff's complaint must set forth sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner's decision was incorrect. "[T]o survive the Court's § 1915(e) screening," a plaintiff must (1) "establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision," (2) "indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides," (3) "state the nature of plaintiff's disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled," and (4) "identify[] the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief." Varao v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration and citation omitted).
Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff "exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council," which denied his request on March 3, 2021. (ECF 1, at 4.) At that time, the ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000). Next, plaintiff claims to reside in Santee, CA "within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court." (Id. at 1.) The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff's disability: "degenerative disc disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine; arthritis of the left knee; major depressive disorder; and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)," which "rendered him disabled since August 15, 2015." (Id. at 3.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration's determination, arguing that the ALJ "improperly identified . . . occupations . . . which require abilities" that run contrary to plaintiff's residual functional capacity. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ "improperly reject[ed plaintiff's] testimony regarding pain, symptom, and limitation." (Id.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive the "low threshold" for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion. Dated: April 27, 2021
/s/_________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge