# Pereira v. Saul

> District Court, S.D. California · June 15, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10081309

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** June 15, 2020
- **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/10081309

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 EDIMAR P., Case No.: 20-cv-1069-AGS
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
12 v.
PAUPERIS (ECF No. 3)
13 Andrew M. SAUL,
14 Defendant.
15
16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed
17 without paying the initial filing fee and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court
18 grants plaintiff’s motion.
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 Plaintiff is unemployed and lists his sole income as $194 in monthly food stamps.
25 (ECF No. 3, at 3.) Plaintiff claims no assets except $74 in cash. (Id. at 2.) In light of the
26 foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial
27 $400 fee.
28
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 states a claim. Plaintiff alleges to have filed a request for
17 disability benefits with the Social Security Administration and pursued that request through
18 an Administrative Law Judge hearing and to the SSA’s Appeals Council. (ECF No. 1, at
19 2.) Plaintiff claims to reside “at Chula Vista, CA,” which is within this district. (Id.)
20 Plaintiff identifies his allegedly disabling conditions and when his disability arose:
21 “Plaintiff filed for disability benefits based on his severe impairments of cervical
22 spondylosis and cervical radiculitis alleging those impairments imposed significant
23 limitations in the ability to complete a normal workday which rendered him disabled since
24 July 11, 2015.” (Id. at 3.) Finally, plaintiff indicates the nature of his disagreement with the
25 SSA’s reasoning, arguing that the agency “improperly rejected [his] testimony regarding
26 pain, symptom[s], and limitation[s]” and identified three occupations he could perform that
27 “comprise less than 7,000 jobs in the national economy which does not represent a
28 significant number of jobs.” (Id. at 3-4.)
1 Conclusion
2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status.
3 Dated: June 15, 2020

5 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
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/10081309. Public record. Not legal advice.