Keller v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Matthew Keller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis after finding the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to determine that the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee based on the affidavit provided. The court also correctly performed the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found the complaint met the minimal pleading standards for a Social Security appeal by identifying specific errors in the ALJ's decision. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status and the mandatory screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It properly applies Ninth Circuit precedent (Lopez, Calhoun) to establish that screening is required for non-prisoner IFP cases. It also correctly applies district court precedent (Hoagland, Schwei) to define the minimal pleading standard for Social Security appeals, requiring specific points of error rather than a general assertion of mistake. The court's finding that the plaintiff 'sufficiently but barely' met this standard is a factual determination supported by the reference to the specific section of the complaint (Doc. No. 1, § 7) where the plaintiff assigned points to the ALJ.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW KELLER, Case No.: 22-CV-707-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint (“IFP 20 Motion”). (Doc. No. 2.) The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. 21 section 1915(e), as required when a plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 The Court finds the Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. Thus, the Court 23 GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. 24 I. MOTION FOR IFP 25 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. section 1915. All parties instituting 26 any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an 27 application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 28 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if 1 the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a). See Rodriguez 2 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under 3 section 1915 must be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty 4 of perjury, that includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees 5 or give security. Civ. L.R. 3.2.a. 6 Plaintiff’s IFP motion indicates Plaintiff receives $0 per month in public assistance, 7 $100 per month in food stamps, and $0 from employment. Plaintiff’s IFP motion also 8 indicates Plaintiff’s expenses add up to $680 per month. He also states he has not been 9 employed within the past 12 months and has no assets. The Court finds that Plaintiff has 10 sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee. 11 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e) 12 Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must 13 rule on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 14 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district 15 court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must 16 dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief 17 may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 19 (noting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 20 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 21 that fails to state a claim.”). 22 Social security appeals are not exempt from the section 1915(e) screening 23 requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 24 June 28, 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma 25 pauperis complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 26 Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, 27 at *3. “A complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly 28 insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1 ||3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 2 ||Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 3 || forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 4 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 5 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 6 sufficiently but barely satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating points of 7 she assigns to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1, § 7.) 8 HI. CONCLUSION 9 Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 |] DATED: June 2, 2022 2 UM Ss 13 Hon. William V. Gallo 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28