# Turner v. Kijakazi

> District Court, S.D. California · May 17, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085772

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** May 17, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085772

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 JAMES T., Case No.: 22-cv-0694-AGS
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
12 v.
(ECF 2)
13 Kilolo KIJAKAZI,
14 Defendant.
15
16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without
17 paying the initial filing fee, and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court grants
18 plaintiff’s motion.
19 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
20 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay
21 a filing fee of $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma
22 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,
23 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
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 Here, plaintiff owns no assets and has no cash on hand. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) He and his
2 spouse both receive $250 in food stamps and $401 in “general relief” each month, for a
3 total of $1,302. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s normal household expenses are $487. (Id. at 4-5.) The
4 Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See
5 Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021)
6 (“It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”).
7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening
8 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it
9 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
10 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
11 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, the complaint must set forth sufficient facts
12 to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was incorrect. “[T]o
13 survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish that she has
14 exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil
15 action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” (2) “indicate the
16 judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of plaintiff’s disability
17 and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] the nature of the
18 plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration
19 and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-
20 JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration and citation omitted).
21 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff
22 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,”
23 which denied his request on “April 11, 2022.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to reside
24 in San Diego, California, “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at 1.)
25 The complaint also sufficiently states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “vestibular
26 disorder,” “hypertension,” “migraine headache,” and various related symptoms, which
27 rendered him disabled since “April 1, 2018.” (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the
28 nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s determination,
1 || arguing that “the ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom
2 limitation testimony that [he] suffers from vertigo, disequilibrium, dizziness, falls
3 ||imbalance, nausea, headaches, light sensitivity, depressed mood, tearfulness, and
4 |/anxiety ... .” Ud. at 3.) Based on these allegations, plaintiffs complaint is sufficient to
5 ||survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm vy.
6 || Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012).
7 Conclusion
8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion.
9 Dated: May 17, 2022
10 —— [|
ll Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10085772. Public record. Not legal advice.