Macias v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL M., Case No.: 3:20-cv-1021-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, [ECF No. 11] 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel M. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the 18 Commissioner of Social Security, Andrew Saul, seeking judicial review of the 19 Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying his application for Social Security 20 Supplemental Security Income Disability Benefits for lack of disability. ECF No. 1. Along 21 with his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 22 (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the 23 Court sua sponte screened Plaintiff’s complaint to evaluate whether his complaint 24 sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, and dismissed Plaintiff’s 25 complaint without prejudice as boilerplate and conclusory. ECF No. 7 at 2–5. As such, 26 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP was denied without prejudice, and the Court cautioned 27 Plaintiff that he must include further details in his renewed motion because he had left 28 1 significant parts of the IFP application blank. Id. at 5, 5 n.1. Plaintiff timely filed his 2 amended complaint on July 13, 2020. ECF No. 10. Along with the amended complaint, 3 Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which the Court examines in this Order. 4 ECF No. 11. 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD 6 A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court’s consideration. First, the 7 Court must determine whether an applicant properly shows an inability to pay the $400 8 civil filing fee required by this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). To that end, an 9 applicant must also provide the Court with a signed affidavit “that includes a statement of 10 all assets[,] which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” CivLR 3.2(a). 11 Second, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to evaluate whether an applicant’s complaint 12 sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 13 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 14 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 17 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 18 prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 19 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 20 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 21 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 22 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 23 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case- 24 by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty 25 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 26 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 27 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 28 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). 1 An adequate affidavit should also state supporting facts “with some particularity, 2 definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 3 (citing Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). The Court should not 4 grant IFP to an applicant who is “financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his 5 own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984); see also Alvarez v. 6 Berryhill, No. 18cv2133-W-BGS, 2018 WL 6265021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) (noting 7 that courts often reject IFP applications when applicants “can pay the filing fee with 8 acceptable sacrifice to other expenses”). Additionally, courts have discretion to make a 9 factual inquiry and to deny a motion to proceed IFP when the moving party is “unable, or 10 unwilling, to verify their poverty.” McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940. 11 Here, Plaintiff states in his affidavit that he receives only $200.00 per month in 12 CalFresh food stamps, has $100 in his checking account, and has no other source of income 13 or valuable assets. ECF No. 11 at 1–3. Plaintiff explains that he lives with his family and 14 is dependent on them for his basic needs since they provide all the income for monthly 15 expenses. Id. at 5; see also ECF No. 10 at 3–4. Considering the information in the affidavit, 16 the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the $400 filing fee 17 under § 1915(a). 18 B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 19 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 21 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss 22 complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 23 granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening 25 requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 26 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 27 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner's denial of social security disability benefits 28 [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 1 (affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); 2 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. 3 Rule 8 sets forth the federal pleading standard used to determine whether a complaint 4 states a claim upon which relief may be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v. 5 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain a “short and plain 6 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Bell Atlantic Corp. 7 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (noting that “detailed factual allegations” are not 8 required, but a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 9 recitation of the elements of a cause of action” to justify relief). A proper pleading “does 10 not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions 12 . . . will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 13 factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations and quotations omitted) 14 (referring to FED. R. CIV. P. 8). 15 For example, in social security cases, “[t]he plaintiff must provide a statement 16 identifying the basis of the plaintiff's disagreement with the ALJ’s determination and must 17 make a showing that he is entitled to relief, ‘in sufficient detail such that the Court can 18 understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can meaningfully screen the 19 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).’” Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 19cv2431-JLB, 2020 WL 20 1169671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (quoting Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB- 21 NJK, 2015 WL 357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015)). “Every plaintiff appealing an 22 adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong. The 23 purpose of the complaint is to briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal 24 conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, 25 at *2. 26 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently 27 stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff appeals the 28 Commissioner’s denial of his benefits application on the grounds that: (1) the 1 |] Administrative Law Judge “failed to account for the neuropsychological evaluation by 2 ||Ryan Kaner, Ph.D whereby it was determined that the Plaintiff's impairments result in 3 ||‘marked deficits in adaptive functioning,’ among other significant limitations after 4 ||completing a battery of psychological testing;” and (2) the Appeals Council erroneously 5 || rejected new and material evidence, including a “medical opinion dated January 31, 2019 6 || that relates to the Plaintiffs long-standing psychiatric impairment,” which related to the 7 || period at issue and “would change the outcome of the decision.” ECF No. 10 at 3-4. The 8 Court finds these allegations sufficiently specific to state a claim for reversal or remand of 9 || the Commissioner’s decision. 10 ||} 0. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion 12 ||to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 11). 13 In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court 14 DIRECTS the Clerk to issue the summons and to send Plaintiff a blank United States 15 || Marshal Service (“USMS”) Form 285 along with certified copies of this Order and his 16 || Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10). Once Plaintiff receives this “IFP Package,” the Court 17 |} ORDERS him to complete the Form 285 and forward all documents in the package to the 18 ||} USMS. Upon receipt, the USMS will serve a copy of the Amended Complaint and 19 |}summons on Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USMS Form 285. The United States 20 || will advance all costs of service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED. R. Crv. P. 4(c)(3) 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: July 16, 2020 04 _ArwiorwH. Xyolard Honorable Allison H. Goddard 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28