Alhawari v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 MOHAMAD H. M. A., Case No.: 22-cv-0504-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 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 two cars worth a combined $9,500 and has $1,419 in his bank 18 accounts. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) With his spouse, he has an average monthly income of $4,431, 19 nearly half of which comes from government assistance. (Id. at 1-2 (noting $189 from 20 “food stamps” and $1,842 because “2 children receive SSI”).) Plaintiff’s normal monthly 21 expenses nearly match his income, running plaintiff and his wife $3,989 each month to 22 support themselves and their three young children. (Id. at 3-5.) So the Court finds that 23 plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See Blount v. Saul, 24 25 26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 28 1 No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well- 2 settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 4 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 5 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 7 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth 8 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 9 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 10 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 11 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” 12 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of 13 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] 14 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social 15 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, 16 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration 17 and citation omitted). 18 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff 19 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,” 20 which denied his request on “September 22, 2021.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to 21 reside in “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court at La Mesa, CA.” (Id. at 1.) 22 The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “Rheumatoid arthritis; familial 23 Mediterranean fever; healed fracture of tibia and fibula; status-post right lower extremity 24 would [sic]; major depressive disorder; and generalized anxiety disorder[,]” which 25 rendered him disabled since “July 12, 2019.” (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the 26 nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s determination, 27 arguing that “the ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [plaintiff’s] 28 symptom and limitation testimony” and that the ALJ “did not properly weigh the medical | |}evidence that [plaintiff] had more limitations as expressed by Drs. Bayyapureddy and 2 || Bailey.” Ud. at 3.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive 3 || the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 4 || F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 5 Conclusion 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP motion. 7 ||Dated: April 14, 2022 9 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28