Nordling v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Robin Nordling's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and the accompanying complaint in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the IFP motion and determined that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee based on the affidavit showing only food stamps as income and no other assets, which satisfies the statutory requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). |
Complaint Survives Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)“The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief and GRANTS the IFP motion.” | agree with court The court applied the mandatory screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found that the plaintiff met the specific pleading standards for Social Security appeals by assigning specific points of error to the ALJ, rather than merely stating the decision was wrong. |
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, Schwei) to define the specific pleading standards for Social Security appeals. The court’s finding that the plaintiff met the 'minimal pleading standards' by assigning specific points of error is consistent with the cited authorities and the recited facts of the complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBIN NORDLING, Case No.: 20-CV-859-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 and 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 claims income consisting of $150 in food stamps per month. Plaintiff claims 6 no salary or other income source. Plaintiff lives rent-free with parents, who apparently pay 7 $1,075 in expenses on Plaintiff’s behalf. In light of Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the 8 Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee. 9 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 10 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 11 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 12 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 13 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 14 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 15 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 18 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 19 that fails to state a claim.”). 20 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 21 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 22 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 23 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 24 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 25 merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 26 a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 27 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 28 Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 1 the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 3 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has A ||sufficiently (though barely) satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating 5 || specific points of error assigned to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1 §/§ 9(a)-(d).) 6 HI. CONCLUSION 7 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||DATED: May 15, 2020 10 | | Se i Hon. William V. Gallo 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28