gno.law

Losito v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00143 · 2020-01-30 · Unknown

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
William v. Gallo (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:55Z · confidence high

The court reviewed Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the accompanying complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and found that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief.

What the court decidedThe model
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted
“Thus, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion.”
agree with court
The court found that the plaintiff sufficiently showed an inability to pay the filing fee based on the affidavit provided, which is the correct standard for granting IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Complaint Survives Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
“The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief.”
agree with court
The court applied the mandatory screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and determined the complaint met the minimal pleading standards for a social security appeal by stating specific points of error assigned to the ALJ. This follows the Ninth Circuit precedent that IFP complaints must be screened and that social security appeals are not exempt.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for the IFP motion and the mandatory screening requirement. It accurately cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Lopez, Calhoun) regarding the scope of § 1915(e) and applies district court precedent (Hoagland) to establish the specific pleading standard for social security appeals. The court's conclusion that the complaint met this standard is supported by the recital that the plaintiff stated specific points of error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES LOSITO, Case No.: 20-CV-143-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [Doc. No. 2.] Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) 20 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as required when a 21 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the Complaint 22 sufficiently states a claim for relief. Thus, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion. 23 I. MOTION FOR IFP 24 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any 25 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 26 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 27 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 28 granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 2 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 3 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. CivLR 4 3.2.a. 5 Plaintiff states his monthly income consists of his salary of $737.75 per month, $10 6 from the CalFresh program, and $1,231 in gifts. His household expenses add up to $2,127 7 per month. His checking and savings accounts contain a combined $27.77. He explains that 8 he pays his entire paycheck to his parents in exchange for lodging and payment of his 9 utilities and other living expenses. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an 10 inability to pay the filing fee. 11 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 13 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 14 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 15 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 16 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 17 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 20 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 21 that fails to state a claim.”). 22 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 23 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 24 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 25 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 26 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 27 merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 28 a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 1 ||/3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 2 ||Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 3 ||forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 4 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 5 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 6 sufficiently satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating specific points of 7 he assigns to the ALJ. 8 It. CONCLUSION 9 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 |} DATED: January 30, 2020 12 | | Se 13 Hon. William V. Gallo 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28