Oviedo-Lopez v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIBEL OVIEDO-LOPEZ, Case No.: 23-CV-2029-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint (“IFP Motion” 18 or “Motion”). (Doc. No. 2.) The Court reviews Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 19 section 1915(e), as required when a litigant files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief and that Plaintiff 21 has sufficiently established her inability to pay the initial filing fee. Accordingly, the Court 22 GRANTS the IFP motion. 23 I. PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 As noted, Plaintiff’s instant Motion arises under 28 U.S.C. section 1915 (“Section 25 1915”). (Doc. No. 2.) As a general matter, a party instituting any civil action, suit, or 26 proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas 27 corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 28 1 despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only where the court grants plaintiff 2 leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. 3 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To that end, all actions sought to be filed in 4 forma pauperis pursuant to Section 1915 must be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by 5 the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes a statement of all assets which shows 6 inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civ. L.R. 3.2.a. 7 Here, Plaintiff’s only source of income is $200.00 per month in food stamps. 8 Plaintiff further represents that she has been employed for only one month during the past 9 twelve months and earned $1,000.00 for her work during such time. Plaintiff adds that she 10 has no money in her bank account and also has no assets, including, but not limited, an 11 automobile, real estate, stocks, bonds, securities, trusts, jewelry, art work, or any other 12 financial instrument or thing of value. (Doc. No. 2. at 3.) Given these factual 13 circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the 14 filing fee of $400. 15 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 16 Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), the Court must rule on its own motion to 17 dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 18 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 19 pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it 20 is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 21 monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 22 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 28 U.S.C. setion 23 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“[§] 1915(e) not only 24 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [in forma pauperis] complaint that fails 25 to state a claim.”). 26 Notably, security appeals are not exempt from the section 1915(e) screening 27 requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see 28 also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 1 ||complaints.”’). “A [social security] complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s 2 ||decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff's pleading requirement.” 3 || Schwei v. Colvin, 2015 WL 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015); Hoagland, 2012 WL 4 ||2521753, at *3 (commenting “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 5 ||Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.’’). Instead, “[a] complaint 6 || appealing the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement 7 || of facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 8 |}2012 WL 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 9 Based on its review of the operative Complaint here, the Court finds Plaintiff has 10 sufficiently satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating the fact-specific 11 |/points of error she assigns to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who resolved her 12 || application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (“Act”). (Doc. No. 1 5- 13 Specifically, Plaintiff set forth the procedural history of the administrative proceedings 14 || underlying the Complaint and identified the purported deficiencies Plaintiff attributes to 15 ||the ALJ’s Notice of Decision. (See id.) In light of Plaintiff's pleading, the Court finds 16 || Plaintiff has adequately presented a statement of facts explaining why the Commissioner 17 Social Security allegedly erred in denying Plaintiffs disability benefits application 18 || under the Act. Coupled with its holding that Plaintiff has demonstrated her inability to pay 19 || the filing fee, the Court finds it appropriate that Plaintiff proceed in forma pauperis in this 20 || Action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 21 (Doc. No. 2.) 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: November 8, 2023 SF A. 29 Hon. SteveB.Chu 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28