Kakadelas v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Kyle T. K.'s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and the accompanying Social Security complaint. The court granted the IFP motion and found that the complaint survived the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“The Court grants plaintiff’s motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. The record shows the plaintiff has no cash, no income, and only one asset (a car valued at $4,000), which is insufficient to cover the $402 filing fee without hardship. The decision follows from the facts recited in the order. |
Finding the Complaint Survives 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening“Based on these allegations, plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the four elements required for a Social Security complaint to survive IFP screening: exhaustion of administrative remedies, proper jurisdiction, statement of disability/onset, and identification of the disagreement with the SSA. The order recites that the plaintiff met all four elements, citing specific dates and allegations from the complaint. The application of the 'low threshold' standard is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate legal standards for both the IFP motion and the mandatory screening of the complaint. It cites the correct statutes and Ninth Circuit precedent. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a screening order, as it explicitly checks the complaint against the four required elements for Social Security cases.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 KYLE T. K., Case No.: 21-cv-1451-AGS 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 5 v. (ECF 3) 6 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, 7 Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 10 without paying the initial filing fee, and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court 11 grants plaintiff’s motion. 12 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 13 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 14 a filing fee of $402. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 15 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 16 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 Here, plaintiff owns one asset—a car valued at $4,000—and has no cash on hand. 18 (ECF 3, at 3.) He has no income and no monthly expenses. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff’s normal 19 monthly expenses are $673. (Id. at 1-2, 4-5.) The Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently 20 shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 21 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-settled that a party need not 22 be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 23 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative 27 fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 2 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 3 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 4 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 5 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth 6 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 7 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 8 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 9 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” (2) 10 “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of 11 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] 12 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social 13 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, 14 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration 15 and citation omitted). 16 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff 17 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,” 18 which denied his request on “June 14, 2021.” (ECF 1, at 4.) Next, plaintiff claims to reside 19 in Encinitas, California “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at 1.) The 20 complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “bipolar disorder, borderline 21 personality disorder, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and 22 anxiety disorder” which rendered him disabled since “June 21, 2017.” (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, 23 plaintiff identifies the nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s 24 determination, arguing first that the ALJ “improperly rejected the opinion of [Dr. Lord].” 25 (Id. at 4.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to survive the “low 26 threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 27 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 28 I Conclusion 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion. 3 ||Dated: August 17, 2021 5 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28