Opinion
Case No.: 3:20-cv-01068-AHG
06-12-2020
ROLAND LEE S., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 3]
On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income. ECF No. 1. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ECF No. 3.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court's consideration. First, the Court must determine whether the applicant has properly shown an inability to pay the $400 filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To that end, each applicant seeking to proceed IFP must provide the Court a signed affidavit including a statement of all the applicant's assets. CivLR 3.2(a). Second, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must evaluate whether the Complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted before the Complaint is served. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) ("1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.").
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Proceed IFP
An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). An adequate affidavit should "allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life." Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). No exact formula is "set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status." Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235-36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of "twenty percent of monthly household income"); see also Cal. Men's Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their "sound discretion"), rev'd on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974).
Here, Plaintiff's affidavit states that Plaintiff receives only $162.00 in food stamps, and he has no other source of income or valuable assets. ECF No. 3 at 1-3. Plaintiff explains that he takes care of his elderly father, who provides all the income for monthly expenses. Id. at 1. Considering the information in the affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the $400 filing fee under § 1915(a).
B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) ("Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner's denial of social security disability benefits [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)]."); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners"); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129.
Rule 8 sets forth the federal pleading standard used to determine whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) ("[A] complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (noting that "detailed factual allegations" are not required, but a plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" to justify relief). A proper pleading "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions . . . will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations and quotations omitted) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). When a plaintiff fails to provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," the Court must either dismiss a portion, or the entirety of the complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547; Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1.
Having reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff appeals the Commissioner's denial of his benefits application on the grounds that: (1) in determining Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") limited Plaintiff to work involving simple instructions for simple, repetitive tasks (among other limitations), but improperly determined at step five of the disability analysis that Plaintiff could perform certain jobs that require greater than simple instructions; (2) the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff's testimony regarding his pain, symptoms, and limitations in assessing Plaintiff's RFC, and the RFC is thus not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) Plaintiff's testimony and the medical evidence of record demonstrate that Plaintiff is unable to perform the alternative work identified by the ALJ. The Court finds these allegations sufficiently specific to state a claim for reversal or remand of the Commissioner's decision.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS the IFP Motion (ECF No. 3).
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to issue the summons and to send Plaintiff a blank United States Marshal Service ("USMS") Form 285 along with certified copies of this Order and his Complaint (ECF No. 1). Once Plaintiff receives this "IFP Package," the Court ORDERS him to complete the Form 285 and forward all documents in the package to the USMS. Upon receipt, the USMS will serve a copy of the Complaint and summons on Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USMS Form 285. The United States will advance all costs of service.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2020
/s/_________
Honorable Allison H. Goddard
United States Magistrate Judge