Jones v. Social Security Admin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Tara JONES, Case No.: 19-cv-2288-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2), DISMISSING 13 SOCIAL SECURITY THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND CLOSING THE 14 ADMINISTRATION CASE, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). While plaintiff qualifies to 18 proceed without paying the initial filing fee, her complaint fails to state a claim for relief. 19 So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint without prejudice. 20 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 22 a $400 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP, 23 a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 24 (9th Cir. 1999). 25 Here plaintiff lists household living expenses as $1,360 and apparently has no 26 income. (ECF No. 3, at 2, 4.) Plaintiff is not currently employed. (Id. at 2.) She has no cash 27 on hand, does not own a vehicle, and has no money in a bank account. (Id. at 2-3.) In light 28 1 of the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the 2 initial $400 fee. 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’s complaint fails to state a claim, as her allegations meet none of these 19 requirements. (See ECF No. 1, at 2-3.) Instead, the complaint states only that “[t]his case 20 is filed for denial of social security benefits” and that she seeks reversal of that decision. 21 (See id. at 2-3.) This is not enough detail to allow the Court to determine what her specific 22 disagreements with the Social Security Administration really are. And although surviving 23 § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff is still required to plausibly allege that she is 24 disabled by identifying her purported disability and suggesting why she is entitled to relief. 25 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Lenz v. Colvin, No. 16- 26 cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (“In social security 27 appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must provide a statement 28 identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security 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 under § 1915(e). The Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen 7 case by submitting an amended complaint by January 4, 2020. 8 ||Dated: December 5, 2019 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