Turner v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES T., Case No.: 22-cv-0694-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 12 v. (ECF 2) 13 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without 17 paying the initial filing fee, and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court grants 18 plaintiff’s motion. 19 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 21 a filing fee of $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 22 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 23 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee 27 of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). 28 1 Here, plaintiff owns no assets and has no cash on hand. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) He and his 2 spouse both receive $250 in food stamps and $401 in “general relief” each month, for a 3 total of $1,302. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s normal household expenses are $487. (Id. at 4-5.) The 4 Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. See 5 Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) 6 (“It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 8 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 9 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 10 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 11 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, the complaint must set forth sufficient facts 12 to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was incorrect. “[T]o 13 survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish that she has 14 exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil 15 action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” (2) “indicate the 16 judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of plaintiff’s disability 17 and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] the nature of the 18 plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration 19 and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-02463-LAB- 20 JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration and citation omitted). 21 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff 22 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,” 23 which denied his request on “April 11, 2022.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Next, plaintiff claims to reside 24 in San Diego, California, “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at 1.) 25 The complaint also sufficiently states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “vestibular 26 disorder,” “hypertension,” “migraine headache,” and various related symptoms, which 27 rendered him disabled since “April 1, 2018.” (Id. at 2-3.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the 28 nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s determination, 1 || arguing that “the ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom 2 limitation testimony that [he] suffers from vertigo, disequilibrium, dizziness, falls 3 ||imbalance, nausea, headaches, light sensitivity, depressed mood, tearfulness, and 4 |/anxiety ... .” Ud. at 3.) Based on these allegations, plaintiffs complaint is sufficient to 5 ||survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm vy. 6 || Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 7 Conclusion 8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion. 9 Dated: May 17, 2022 10 —— [| ll Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28