The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 PAULA W., Case No.: 21-cv-0103-AGS
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
12 v.
PAUPERIS (ECF 2) AND
13 Andrew M. SAUL, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
14 Defendant.
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
15
16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed
17 without paying the filing fee, but an initial review of the complaint shows it fails to state a
18 claim for relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint
19 with leave to amend.
20 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
21 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay
22 a $402 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP,
23 a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177
24 (9th Cir. 1999).
25 Plaintiff lists monthly household living expenses as $1,587.00 and household
26 income as $780. (ECF 2 at 2, 5.) Plaintiff is not currently employed, although she worked
27 for Uber and Lyft for a period in the first half of 2020 for approximately $100/month each.
28 (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff has $75 cash on hand and receives assistance from an adult daughter
1 to meet her expenses. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff owns no assets. (Id. at 3.) So, the Court finds
2 that plaintiff’s negative income and cash history sufficiently shows an inability to pay the
3 initial $402 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 fails to state a claim. Plaintiff recounts the procedural history
20 before the Social Security Administration, which appears to have exhausted the available
21 administrative remedies. (ECF 1, at 2.) She also resides in this district, and she identifies
22 the nature of her disagreement with the Administration’s ruling. (Id. at 1-3.) But, despite
23 identifying those disagreements, she does not identify the nature of her disability or when
24 she became disabled. (Id. at 2-3.) Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,”
25 plaintiff’s complaint does not have the requisite factual detail. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
26 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012).
27
28
1 Conclusion
2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the
3 filing fee. But the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to
4 administratively close this case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen the case by filing an
5 amended complaint by February 8, 2021, addressing the concerns outlined in this order.
6 Dated: January 20, 2021
g Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28