Resnik v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 KRISTEN R., Case No.: 22-cv-1715-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 I. 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 one asset—a car valued at $5,000—and has $20 in her bank 18 account. (ECF 2, at 2-3.) She receives $267 in food stamps each month and has no other 19 stable income source. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s normal monthly expenses are $1,316. (Id. at 5.) 20 The Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. 21 See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 22 2021) (“It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 23 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative 27 fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). 28 1 II. 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, a plaintiff’s complaint must 6 set forth sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision 7 was incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must 8 (1) “establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9 § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final 10 decision,” (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the 11 nature of plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and 12 (4) “identify[] the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by 13 the Social Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. 14 Berryhill, No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) 15 (alteration 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 “September 20, 2022.” (ECF 1, at 4.) Next, plaintiff claims to 19 reside in San Diego, California “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. 20 at 1.) The complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “post-traumatic stress 21 disorder (“PTSD”), depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorders, tremors, seizures, 22 cubital tunnel tendonitis, tunnel syndrome, and back pain” which rendered her disabled 23 since “July 1, 2018.” (Id. at 2.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of her disagreement 24 with the Social Security Administration’s determination, arguing that the ALJ “did not 25 state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptoms and limitation testimony that 26 [she] has pain in her hands, tremors worse on the right than the left, [and] cannot even hold 27 a glass of water for too long before dropping it and/or using two hands.” (Id. at 4.) Based 28 on these allegations, plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for 1 || proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2 }}2012). 3 III. Conclusion 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP Motion. 5 Dated: November 7, 2022 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