The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 LILLIAN G., Case No.: 21-cv-2098-AGS
4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
5 v.
(ECF 2)
6 Kilolo KIJAKAZI,
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 $250 in food
18 stamps and $472 in unemployment each month, for a total of $722. (ECF 2, at 2-3.)
19 Plaintiff’s normal household expenses are $832. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court finds that plaintiff
20 has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-
21 CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-settled that
22 a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”).
23
24
25
26
27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee 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,”
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 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 “October 20, 2021.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to
19 reside in El Cajon, California “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at 1.)
20 The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “lumbar arthropathy; morbid
21 obesity; COPD; drop foot; gastroparesis; history of tobacco dependence; marijuana
22 dependences; [and] a history of alcohol abuse and methamphetamine abuse in varying
23 states of remission,” which rendered her disabled since “December 17, 2016.” (Id. at 2.)
24 Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of her disagreement with the Social Security
25 Administration’s determination, arguing that the ALJ “did not state clear and convincing
26 reasons for rejecting [her] symptom and limitation testimony that [she] suffers from a
27 mental impairment of depression and anxiety.” (Id. at 3.) Based on these allegations,
28
1 || plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the
2 || § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012).
3 Conclusion
4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion.
5 Dated: December 21, 2021
7 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28