Opinion

Yeargan v. Kijakazi

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Apr 28, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.1%

The opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 THERESA Y., Case No.: 21-cv-0814-AGS

4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

5 v.

(ECF 3)

6 Andrew M. SAUL,

7 Defendant.

8

9 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed

10 without paying the initial filing fee, and her complaint states a claim for relief. So, the

11 Court grants plaintiff’s motion.

12 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

13 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay

14 a filing fee of $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma

15 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,

16 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

17 Here, plaintiff owns no assets and has no cash on hand. She receives $400-$500 in

18 food stamps and $1,200 in unemployment each month, for a total of $1,600-$1,700. (ECF

19 3, at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s normal household expenses are $1,440. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court finds

20 that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v.

21 Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is

22 well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”).

23

24

25

26

1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee

27 of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1,

2020).

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,” (2)

10 “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 meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff

17 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,”

18 which denied her request on “March 22, 2021.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to

19 reside in Escondido, California “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at

20 1.) The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “bilateral carpal tunnel

21 syndrome; ulnar nerve dysfunction; and obesity” which rendered her disabled since “May

22 30, 2016.” (Id. at2.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of her disagreement with the

23 Social Security Administration’s determination, arguing that the ALJ “did not state clear

24 and convincing reasons for rejecting [her] symptom and limitation testimony” and “did not

25 properly weigh the medical evidence that [she] had more limitations.” (Id. at 3.) Based on

26 these allegations, plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for

27 proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir.

28 2012).

1 Conclusion

2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion.

3 Dated: April 28, 2021

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

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.