The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Habibullah Khwaja AHRARI, Case No.: 20-cv-1971-AGS
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
12 v.
PAUPERIS (ECF 2)
13 Andrew M. SAUL,
14 Defendant.
15
16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed
17 without paying the filing fee and initial review of the complaint shows it states a claim for
18 relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP 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 lists monthly household living expenses as $1,564.00 and household
25 income as $1,199. (ECF 2 at 2, 5.) Plaintiff is not currently employed, but plaintiff’s spouse
26 earns the bulk of the household through employment and plaintiff supplements that with
27 $119 in public assistance. (Id. at 1-2.) The couple has $300 cash on hand, and have to seek
28 assistance from family after finding themselves “short” every month. (Id. at 2, 5.) Plaintiff
1 owns a car worth $10,000 and a house worth $280,000. (Id. at 3.) Despite significant home
2 and auto assets, the Court finds that plaintiff’s negative income and cash history
3 sufficiently shows an inability to pay the initial $400 fee.
4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening
5 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it
6 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
7 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
8 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth
9 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was
10 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish
11 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that
12 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,”
13 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of
14 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[]
15 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social
16 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill,
17 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration
18 and citation omitted).
19 Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim. Plaintiff recounts the procedural history before
20 the Social Security Administration, which appears to have exhausted the available
21 administrative remedies. (ECF 1, at 2.) Plaintiff identifies the disability’s nature—
22 “cerebrovascular disease with a history of a stroke”—which began in late 2017 and was
23 post-surgery in March 2018 with “residual left sided weakness and dizziness” and an
24 alleged raft of other complications. (Id.) Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Administration
25 gave “limited weight” to a treating physician opinion which stated plaintiff suffered from
26 an inability to sit or walk for enough time during a workday to find employment. (Id. at 3.)
27 Because surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff’s complaint has enough.
28 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Lenz v. Colvin, No. 16-
1 || cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (‘In social security
2 ||appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must provide a statement
3 |/identifying the basis of the plaintiff's disagreement with the Social Security
4 || Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to
5 || relief.’” (citation omitted)).
6 Conclusion
7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the
8 || filing fee.
9 Dated: October 7, 2020
10
ll Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28