Godfrey v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Mark Charles Godfrey filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the motion and found 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 correctly applied the statutory standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the local rule requirement for an affidavit. The recited financial facts (no employment, no assets, low income) support the finding of inability to pay. |
Complaint Survives Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)“Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently (though barely) satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating specific points of error assigned to the ALJ.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the heightened pleading standard for Social Security IFP cases, which requires more than a bare assertion that the Commissioner was wrong. The court found that the plaintiff met this standard by assigning specific points of error to the ALJ, which is the required procedural step for such appeals. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable statutory framework for IFP motions and the specific screening requirements for Social Security cases. It accurately cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Lopez, Calhoun) and persuasive district court authority (Hoagland, Schwei) to establish the heightened pleading standard. The court’s application of this standard to the specific facts (finding the complaint 'barely' sufficient because it assigned specific points of error) is legally sound and consistent with the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK CHARLES GODFREY, Case No.: 20-CV-917-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 $750 per month, which consists of his family 6 paying his rent. Plaintiff claims no salary or other income source. He has not been 7 employed within the past twelve months and has no assets. Plaintiff claims $985 in 8 expenses. In light of Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 9 sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee. 10 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 12 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 13 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 14 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 15 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 16 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 19 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 20 that fails to state a claim.”). 21 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 22 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 23 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 24 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 25 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 26 merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 27 a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 28 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 1 || Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 2 ||forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 3 || 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 4 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 5 ||sufficiently (though barely) satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating 6 || specific points of error assigned to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1 §/{{ 9(a)-(d).) 7 Hl. CONCLUSION 8 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||DATED: May 18, 2020 | | Se 12 Hon. William V. Gallo 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28