The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 JUSTIN A., Case No.: 22-cv-0714-AGS
4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
5 v.
(ECF 2), BUT DISMISSING THE
6 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, COMPLAINT
7 Defendant.
8
9 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court concludes that plaintiff
10 qualifies to proceed without paying the initial filing fee, but his complaint fails to state a
11 claim for relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint
12 without prejudice.
13 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
14 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay
15 a filing fee of $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma
16 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,
17 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
18 Plaintiff owns a 2021 motor vehicle, but has no other assets nor cash on hand or in
19 a bank account. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) He has no monthly income. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s normal
20 monthly household expenses are $3,020. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds that plaintiff has
21 sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-
22 BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-settled that a party
23 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”).
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 or malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or seeks monetary relief from a
4 defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
5 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, the 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’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations meet the first and
17 second requirements, but the complaint is silent as to the nature of his disability, the date
18 on which he allegedly became disabled, and his disagreement with the Social Security
19 Administration’s determination. (See ECF 1, at 2.) While plaintiff’s complaint contains
20 some boilerplate language (see id.), there is not enough detail to allow the Court to
21 determine what his specific disagreements with the Social Security Administration are.
22 Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff is still required to plausibly
23 allege that he is disabled by identifying his purported disability and suggesting why he is
24 entitled to relief. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Lenz v.
25 Colvin, No. 16-cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (“In
26 social security appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must provide a
27 statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security
28
1 || Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to
2 ||relief.’” (citation omitted)).
3 Conclusion
4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the
5 || filing fee. But the complaint fails to state a claim and thus is dismissed without prejudice.
6 || The Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen the case by
7 submitting an amended complaint by June 17, 2022.
8 Dated: May 17, 2022
9 —
10 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler
United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28