Henderson v. Saul ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL ANTHONY HENDERSON, Case No.: 20cv911-BAS-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of WITHOUT PREJUDICE Social Security, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 16 17 18 On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 ECF No. 2. In this action, Plaintiff is seeking review and reversal of the final decision of 20 the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that denied Plaintiff’s claim for 21 disability benefits and supplemental security income. ECF No. 1. All parties instituting any 22 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 23 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 24 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave 25 to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 26 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of 27 an action without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a 28 / / / 1 statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 Here, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit indicating that his sole source of income is 4 from public assistance for $529 per month. ECF No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff avers that he is 5 unemployed and unable to work as a result of his physical disability. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s 6 application states that his monthly expenses are $337 for rent and $192 for food. 7 Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff represents that he owns one asset—a car—worth $300. Id. at 3. Based 8 on the above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s application demonstrates he is unable to 9 pay the requisite fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 10 proceed in forma pauperis. 11 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 12 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 13 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 14 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 15 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 16 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 17 “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 18 pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim”). 19 All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 20 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 21 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 22 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 23 (citation omitted). In Social Security appeals, judges in this circuit have found that a 24 complaint challenging the denial of benefits must contain the following basic requirements 25 to satisfy the Court’s screening: 26 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 27 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 28 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. 1 Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's 3 disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security A Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 5 ||Montoya_v. Colvin, No. 216CVO0454RFBNJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 6 Nev. Mar. 8, 2016). 7 Here, Plaintiff appeals the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiffs claim for 8 || disability benefits and supplemental security income. ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff fails 9 || to state when he became disabled and the nature of his disability, stating only that Plaintiff 10 || “is, and at all times relevant to this action, disabled as that term is defined in the Social 11 ||Security Act.” Id. at 2. As set forth above, this omission renders the complaint insufficient 12 ||to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Montoya v. 13 |}Colvin, 2016 WL 890922, at *2. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 14 || PREJUDICE Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint on or 15 || before August 17, 2020. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the time 16 || provided, the Court may enter a final order dismissing this civil action with prejudice. 17 IT ISSO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 15, 2020 XO 19 DEF 20 Honorable Linda Lopez United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28