Nguyen v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHAN TAM NGUYEN, Case No.: 20-CV-2391-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 $200 in public assistance and a $100 gift from 6 his parents per month. Plaintiff claims no salary or other income source since 2011. In light 7 of Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown 8 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 || forth 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 4 sufficiently satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating specific points of 5 || error assigned to the ALJ. 6 Ht. CONCLUSION 7 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: December 9, 2020 10 | | Se 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