The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 MOHAMAD H. M. A., Case No.: 22-cv-0504-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 his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court
11 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 two cars worth a combined $9,500 and has $1,419 in his bank
18 accounts. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) With his spouse, he has an average monthly income of $4,431,
19 nearly half of which comes from government assistance. (Id. at 1-2 (noting $189 from
20 “food stamps” and $1,842 because “2 children receive SSI”).) Plaintiff’s normal monthly
21 expenses nearly match his income, running plaintiff and his wife $3,989 each month to
22 support themselves and their three young children. (Id. at 3-5.) So the Court finds that
23 plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v. Saul,
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 No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-
2 settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”).
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening
4 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it
5 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
6 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
7 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth
8 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was
9 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish
10 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that
11 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,”
12 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of
13 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[]
14 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social
15 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill,
16 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration
17 and citation omitted).
18 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff
19 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,”
20 which denied his request on “September 22, 2021.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to
21 reside in “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court at La Mesa, CA.” (Id. at 1.)
22 The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “Rheumatoid arthritis; familial
23 Mediterranean fever; healed fracture of tibia and fibula; status-post right lower extremity
24 would [sic]; major depressive disorder; and generalized anxiety disorder[,]” which
25 rendered him disabled since “July 12, 2019.” (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the
26 nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s determination,
27 arguing that “the ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [plaintiff’s]
28 symptom and limitation testimony” and that the ALJ “did not properly weigh the medical
| |}evidence that [plaintiff] had more limitations as expressed by Drs. Bayyapureddy and
2 || Bailey.” Ud. at 3.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive
3 || the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
4 || F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012).
5 Conclusion
6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion.
7 ||Dated: April 14, 2022
9 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28