Sardina v. Kijakazki
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Francesca Maria Sardina's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and her complaint in a Social Security disability case. The court granted the IFP motion, finding the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee and that the complaint met the statutory screening requirements.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“So, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion.” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff owns no assets, has no cash, and has a monthly income of $609.71 with expenses over $500. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a party is entitled to proceed IFP if they are unable to pay the fees. The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute. The facts provided support the conclusion that the plaintiff cannot pay the $402 filing fee. |
Complaint survives 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening“Based on these allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening.” | agree with court The court applied the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and the specific pleading requirements for Social Security cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. Soc. Sec. Supp. 2(b)(1). The order lists the specific allegations in the complaint that satisfy these requirements (citing § 405(g), identifying the decision, plaintiff, and benefits sought). The court correctly determined that the complaint was not frivolous and stated a claim for relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutes and case law for both the IFP determination and the § 1915(e) screening. It accurately applies the specific pleading requirements for Social Security cases. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided for this specific order.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Francesca Maria SARDINA for Wendy Case No.: 22-cv-1993-AGS 4 Raymond Sardina, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 5 Plaintiff, (ECF 2) 6 v. 7 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, 8 Defendant. 9 10 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 11 without paying the initial filing fee, and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court 12 grants plaintiff’s motion. 13 I. 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 Here, plaintiff owns no assets and has no cash on hand. (ECF 2, at 2.) She has a 19 monthly income of $609.71 and expenses running over $500 a month. (Id. at 1–2, 4 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 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 ||(1) “state that the action is brought under § 405(g),” (2) “identify the decision to be 7 || reviewed,” (3) “state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits 8 claimed,” (4) “name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed,” and (5) 9 || “state the type of benefits claimed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Soc. Sec. Supp. 2(b)(1). 10 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. Plaintiff states the 11 |}claim is made “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),” identifies the decision as a denial from the 12 || Appellate Council “dated 10/31/2018,” identifies plaintiff and her residence as the “County 13 San Diego,” and demands “disability benefits under the provisions of the Social Security 14 || Act.” (ECF 1, at 2-3.) Based on these allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to 15 ||survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. 16 || Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 17 III. Conclusion 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP Motion. 19 Dated: December 21, 2022 20 — | 1 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28