# Smith v. Saul

> District Court, S.D. California · September 24, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079624

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** September 24, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079624

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Cheryl Ann SMITH, Case No.: 19-cv-1692-AGS
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
12 v.
PAUPERIS (ECF No. 3), DISMISSING
13 Andrew M. SAUL THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND CLOSING THE
14 Defendant.
CASE, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
15
16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). While plaintiff qualifies to
17 proceed without paying the initial filing fee, her complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
18 So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint without prejudice.
19 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
20 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay
21 a $400 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP,
22 a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177
23 (9th Cir. 1999).
24 Here plaintiff does not provide bank account information, but lists household living
25 expenses as $4,762.79 and household income as $3,246. (ECF No. 3, at 2, 4.) Virtually all
26 of plaintiff’s income is from retirement benefits, and neither plaintiff nor her spouse are
27 currently employed. (Id. at 2, 5.) Plaintiff owns one car worth $1,530 and has $21.73 in
28
1 cash. (Id. at 2-3.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently
2 shown an inability to pay the initial $400 fee.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening
4 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it
5 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
6 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
7 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth
8 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was
9 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish
10 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that
11 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,”
12 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of
13 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[]
14 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social
15 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill,
16 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration
17 and citation omitted).
18 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations meet the first and
19 second requirements, but the complaint is silent as to the nature of her disability, the date
20 on which she allegedly became disabled, and her disagreement with the Social Security
21 Administration’s determination. (See ECF No. 1, at 2-3.) While plaintiff’s complaint
22 contains some boiler-plate language (see id.), there is not enough detail to allow the Court
23 to determine what her specific disagreements with the Social Security Administration
24 really are. Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff is still required to
25 plausibly allege that she is disabled by identifying her purported disability and suggesting
26 why she is entitled to relief. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see
27 also Lenz v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3,
28 2016) (“In social security appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must
1 || provide a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff's disagreement with the Social
2 ||Security Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is
3 || entitled to relief.’” (citation omitted)).
4 Conclusion
5 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the
6 || filing fee. But the complaint fails to state a claim and thus is dismissed without prejudice
7 |}under § 1915(e). The Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen
8 case by submitting an amended complaint by October 23, 2019.
9 Dated: September 24, 2019
10 ma !
Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079624. Public record. Not legal advice.