Taffe v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Barbara Helen Taffe's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and her complaint in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis after finding the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim by identifying specific errors in the Administrative Law Judge's decision.
| 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to determine that the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee based on the affidavit of income and expenses provided. The court also correctly performed the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found the complaint met the minimal pleading standards for a Social Security appeal by identifying specific points of error. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status and the mandatory screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It properly applies Ninth Circuit precedent (Lopez, Calhoun) to establish that screening applies to non-prisoner civil cases, including Social Security appeals. The court correctly cites district court cases (Hoagland, Schwei) to define the specific pleading standard for Social Security appeals (identifying specific errors rather than just claiming the decision was wrong). The court's finding that the plaintiff met this standard based on the specific points of error in the complaint is supported by the record recited in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA HELEN TAFFE, Case No.: 20-CV-1974-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 $948 per month, which consists of $248 per 6 month in unemployment benefits and a one-time $700 earned in July 2020 for babysitting. 7 Plaintiff claims no salary or other income source. Plaintiff claims $1,262 in expenses and 8 unspecified debt owed to family, friends, and the IRS. In light of Plaintiff’s financial 9 circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the 10 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 || error assigned to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1 §[§] 9(a)-(h).) 8 HI. CONCLUSION 9 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: October 8, 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