Wagner v. Saul ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY KATHLEEN WAGER, Case No.: 19cv2185-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of [ECF No. 2] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. ECF No. 2. In this action, Plaintiff is seeking review and reversal of the final 20 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that denied Plaintiff’s 21 claim for disability benefits. ECF No. 1. All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or 22 proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas 23 corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 24 despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed 25 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 26 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action 27 without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of 28 assets, showing that she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, 1 Plaintiff submitted an affidavit indicating that her sole source of income is from public 2 assistance in the amount of $192 a month. ECF No. 3 at 3. Plaintiff also states that she has 3 $326 in income, but from an unspecified source. Id. Plaintiff is not employed and only has 4 $25.00 in cash. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has no bank account. Id. Plaintiff represents that she owns 5 one asset, a Kia Sorento motor vehicle, worth $300. Id. at 2. Based on the above, the Court 6 concludes that Plaintiff’s application demonstrates she is unable to pay the requisite fees 7 and costs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 8 pauperis. 9 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 10 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 11 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 12 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 13 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 14 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that “section 1915(e) not only 15 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 16 state a claim”). 17 All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 18 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 19 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 20 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 21 (citation omitted). In Social Security appeals, judges in this circuit have found that a 22 complaint challenging the denial of benefits must contain the following basic requirements 23 to satisfy the Court’s screening: 24 First, the plaintiff must establish that he has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 25 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 26 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and when 27 the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain 28 a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's 1 disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Montoya v. Colvin, No. 216CVO0454RFBNJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 3 2016). 4 Here, Plaintiff appeals the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff's claim for 5 disability benefits. ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff fails to state the nature of her disability 6 and when she became disabled, stating only that the denial of her claim for “SSI benefits 7 [has] result[ed] in a downward spiral of health and wellness issues.” Id. As set forth above, 8 this omission renders the complaint insufficient to survive the sua sponte screening ? required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 10 PREJUDICE Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint on or before January 31, 2020. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the time provided, the Court may enter a final order dismissing this civil action with prejudice. IS IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Is Dated: December 17, 2019 _ Lo Ff | 16 Honorable Linda Lopez 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28