Williams v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Paula W.'s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and her complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security. The court granted the IFP motion but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, specifically for failing to identify the nature of the disability and the onset date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis granted“So, the Court finds that plaintiff’s negative income and cash history sufficiently shows an inability to pay the initial $402 fee.” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff's financial affidavit demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee, which is the standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The facts recited (low income, no assets, reliance on family support) support this conclusion. |
Complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim“But, despite identifying those disagreements, she does not identify the nature of her disability or when she became disabled. (Id. at 2-3.) Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff’s complaint does not have the requisite factual detail.” | agree with court The court applied the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and cited Varao v. Berryhill for the proposition that a Social Security complaint must identify the nature of the disability and the onset date. The order states the complaint failed to include these specific facts. Dismissing without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is appropriate when the failure is curable. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP screening and applies the specific pleading requirements for Social Security cases as articulated in district court precedent (Varao). It accurately assesses the complaint's deficiencies based on the record provided and grants leave to amend, which is the standard remedy for curable pleading defects in IFP cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAULA W., Case No.: 21-cv-0103-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS (ECF 2) AND 13 Andrew M. SAUL, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 14 Defendant. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 15 16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 17 without paying the filing fee, but an initial review of the complaint shows it fails to state a 18 claim for relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint 19 with leave to amend. 20 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 22 a $402 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP, 23 a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 24 (9th Cir. 1999). 25 Plaintiff lists monthly household living expenses as $1,587.00 and household 26 income as $780. (ECF 2 at 2, 5.) Plaintiff is not currently employed, although she worked 27 for Uber and Lyft for a period in the first half of 2020 for approximately $100/month each. 28 (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff has $75 cash on hand and receives assistance from an adult daughter 1 to meet her expenses. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff owns no assets. (Id. at 3.) So, the Court finds 2 that plaintiff’s negative income and cash history sufficiently shows an inability to pay the 3 initial $402 fee. 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 5 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 6 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 7 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 8 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth 9 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 10 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 11 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 12 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” 13 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of 14 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] 15 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social 16 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, 17 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration 18 and citation omitted). 19 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff recounts the procedural history 20 before the Social Security Administration, which appears to have exhausted the available 21 administrative remedies. (ECF 1, at 2.) She also resides in this district, and she identifies 22 the nature of her disagreement with the Administration’s ruling. (Id. at 1-3.) But, despite 23 identifying those disagreements, she does not identify the nature of her disability or when 24 she became disabled. (Id. at 2-3.) Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” 25 plaintiff’s complaint does not have the requisite factual detail. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 26 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 27 28 1 Conclusion 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the 3 filing fee. But the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to 4 administratively close this case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen the case by filing an 5 amended complaint by February 8, 2021, addressing the concerns outlined in this order. 6 Dated: January 20, 2021 g Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28