Ambrose v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 JUSTIN A., Case No.: 22-cv-0714-AGS 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 5 v. (ECF 2), BUT DISMISSING THE 6 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, COMPLAINT 7 Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court concludes that plaintiff 10 qualifies to proceed without paying the initial filing fee, but his complaint fails to state a 11 claim for relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint 12 without prejudice. 13 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 14 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 15 a filing fee of $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 16 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 17 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Plaintiff owns a 2021 motor vehicle, but has no other assets nor cash on hand or in 19 a bank account. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) He has no monthly income. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s normal 20 monthly household expenses are $3,020. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds that plaintiff has 21 sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679- 22 BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“It is well-settled that a party 23 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 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 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 or malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or seeks monetary relief from a 4 defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 5 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, the 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’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations meet the first and 17 second requirements, but the complaint is silent as to the nature of his disability, the date 18 on which he allegedly became disabled, and his disagreement with the Social Security 19 Administration’s determination. (See ECF 1, at 2.) While plaintiff’s complaint contains 20 some boilerplate language (see id.), there is not enough detail to allow the Court to 21 determine what his specific disagreements with the Social Security Administration are. 22 Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff is still required to plausibly 23 allege that he is disabled by identifying his purported disability and suggesting why he is 24 entitled to relief. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Lenz v. 25 Colvin, No. 16-cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (“In 26 social security appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must provide a 27 statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security 28 1 || Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to 2 ||relief.’” (citation omitted)). 3 Conclusion 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the 5 || filing fee. But the complaint fails to state a claim and thus is dismissed without prejudice. 6 || The Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen the case by 7 submitting an amended complaint by June 17, 2022. 8 Dated: May 17, 2022 9 — 10 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28