Green v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Lillian G.'s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and her complaint in a Social Security disability action. The court granted the IFP motion, finding the plaintiff unable to pay the filing fee and that the complaint survived the mandatory § 1915(e) screening.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the $402 filing fee by showing monthly income of $722 against expenses of $832, resulting in a deficit. The court correctly noted that a party need not be completely destitute to qualify. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
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 applied the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and the specific pleading standards for Social Security cases in the Ninth Circuit. The court verified that the complaint alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies, proper jurisdiction, the nature of the disability, and the specific legal error (failure to provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting testimony). The application of the 'low threshold' standard is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and substantively sound. It accurately identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status and the specific screening standards for Social Security cases in the Ninth Circuit. The court explicitly applies the four-part test from Varao v. Berryhill to the facts alleged in the complaint, demonstrating that the plaintiff met each requirement. The financial analysis for IFP status is straightforward and supported by the cited affidavit. No significant legal arguments or authorities were omitted that would change the outcome.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 LILLIAN G., Case No.: 21-cv-2098-AGS 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 5 v. (ECF 2) 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 her complaint states a claim for relief. So, the 11 Court 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 no assets and has no cash on hand. She receives $250 in food 18 stamps and $472 in unemployment each month, for a total of $722. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) 19 Plaintiff’s normal household expenses are $832. (Id. at 4-5.) The Court finds that plaintiff 20 has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21- 21 CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-settled that 22 a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 23 24 25 26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $52. 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,” 10 (2) “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 her request on “October 20, 2021.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to 19 reside in El Cajon, California “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at 1.) 20 The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “lumbar arthropathy; morbid 21 obesity; COPD; drop foot; gastroparesis; history of tobacco dependence; marijuana 22 dependences; [and] a history of alcohol abuse and methamphetamine abuse in varying 23 states of remission,” which rendered her disabled since “December 17, 2016.” (Id. at 2.) 24 Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of her disagreement with the Social Security 25 Administration’s determination, arguing that the ALJ “did not state clear and convincing 26 reasons for rejecting [her] symptom and limitation testimony that [she] suffers from a 27 mental impairment of depression and anxiety.” (Id. at 3.) Based on these allegations, 28 1 || plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the 2 || § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 Conclusion 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion. 5 Dated: December 21, 2021 7 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28