Villegas v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOLANDA V., Case No.: 3:19-cv-01856-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of [ECF No. 7] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 3, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”) because her Complaint failed to state a claim and permitted leave 19 to amend. ECF Nos. 3, 5. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a renewed IFP Motion 20 on October 11, 2019. ECF Nos. 6, 7. 21 A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court’s consideration. First, the 22 Court must determine whether the applicant has properly shown an inability to pay the 23 $400 filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 24 (9th Cir. 1999). To that end, each applicant seeking to proceed IFP must provide the Court 25 a signed affidavit including a statement of all the applicant’s assets. CivLR 3.2(a). Second, 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must evaluate whether the Complaint 27 sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted before the Complaint is served. 28 1 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) not only permits but 2 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 3 claim.”). 4 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 5 sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff appeals 6 the Commissioner’s denial of her benefits application pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7 § 405(g) on the grounds that: (1) in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity 8 (“RFC”), the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to articulate specific reasons for 9 rejecting the opinions of psychiatrists Dr. Ngati and Dr. Mao, which constitutes legal error; 10 and (2) the error is not harmless because had the ALJ incorporated Dr. Ngati’s and Dr. 11 Mao’s proposed limitations into Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ would have found Plaintiff 12 disabled pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-8p. See ECF No. 6; see also SSR 96-8p, 13 1996 WL 374184 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). The Court finds these allegations sufficiently 14 specific to state a claim for reversal or remand of the Commissioner’s decision. 15 Additionally, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 7) contains the same sworn statement 16 of her assets provided in her previous IFP Motion. That affidavit shows that she receives 17 only $192 per month in general public assistance and owns a motor vehicle worth $5,000, 18 and that she otherwise has no income or assets. Id. Thus, the Court finds once more that 19 Plaintiff has shown an inability to pay the filing fee under § 1915(a). 20 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS the IFP Motion (ECF 21 No. 7). 22 \ 23 \ 24 \ 25 \ 26 \ 27 \ 28 \ 1 In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court 2 || DIRECTS the Clerk to issue the summons and to send Plaintiff a blank United States 3 ||Marshal Service (“USMS”) Form 285 along with certified copies of this Order and her 4 || Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6). Once Plaintiff receives this “IFP Package,” the Court 5 ||} ORDERS her to complete the Form 285 and forward all documents in the package to the 6 || USMS. Upon receipt, the USMS will serve a copy of the Amended Complaint and 7 |{summons on Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USMS Form 285. The United States 8 || will advance all costs of service. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: October 16, 2019 _Abiomt. Xl Honorable Allison H. Goddard 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28