Opinion

Masterson v. Saul

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Nov 25, 2019
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.0%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Arlene Elizabeth MASTERSON, Case No.: 19-cv-2200-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 lists household living expenses as $986.89 and household income as

25 $931.72. (ECF No. 3, at 2, 4.) All of plaintiff’s income is from disability benefits, and

26 plaintiff is not currently employed. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff owns one car worth $2000 and has

27 $40 in a bank account. (Id. at 2-3.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff

28 has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $400 fee.

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening

2 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it

3 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant

4 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127

5 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth

6 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was

7 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish

8 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that

9 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,”

10 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of

11 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[]

12 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social

13 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill,

14 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration

15 and citation omitted).

16 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations meet the first and

17 second requirements, but the complaint is silent as to the nature of her disability, the date

18 on which she allegedly became disabled, and her disagreement with the Social Security

19 Administration’s determination. (See ECF No. 1, at 2-3.) While plaintiff’s complaint

20 contains some boiler-plate language (see id.), there is not enough detail to allow the Court

21 to determine what her specific disagreements with the Social Security Administration

22 really are. Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff is still required to

23 plausibly allege that she is disabled by identifying her purported disability and suggesting

24 why she is entitled to relief. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see

25 also Lenz v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3,

26 2016) (“In social security appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must

27 provide a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social

28

1 || Security Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is

2 || entitled to relief.’” (citation omitted)).

3 Conclusion

4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the

5 || filing fee. But the complaint fails to state a claim and thus is dismissed without prejudice

6 under § 1915(e). The Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen

7 case by submitting an amended complaint by January 3, 2020.

8 ||Dated: November 25, 2019

9 —

10 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler

United States Magistrate Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.