The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 MARIA E. S., Case No.: 22-cv-0364-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 $58.25 in her checking account. (ECF 2,
18 at 2-3.) She has an average monthly income of $1,023. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff’s normal
19 monthly expenses exceed that income. (Id. at 4-5 (estimating either $1,178 or $4,184 in
20 monthly expenses).) So the Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to
21 pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at
22 *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute
23 to proceed IFP.”).
24
25
26
27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative
fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1,
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 “January 19, 2022.” (ECF 1, at 4.) Next, plaintiff claims to
19 reside in “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court at San Diego, CA.” (Id. at 1.)
20 The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “obesity, left carpal tunnel
21 syndrome status post release surgery, major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress
22 disorder . . . anxiety and borderline intellectual functioning” which rendered her disabled
23 since “January 18, 2018.” (Id. at 3.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of her
24 disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s determination, arguing that “there
25 is no substantial medical or vocational evidence” to support the ALJ’s “not disabled”
26 conclusion and that the ALJ “improperly rejected the medical opinion of Dr. Schere
27 regarding [plaintiff’s] mental residual functional capacity.” (Id. at 2, 4.) Based on these
28
1 || allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding
2 the § 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: April 4, 2022
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