Ahrari v. Kijakazi ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Habibullah Khwaja AHRARI, Case No.: 20-cv-1971-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS (ECF 2) 13 Andrew M. SAUL, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 17 without paying the filing fee and initial review of the complaint shows it states a claim for 18 relief. So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion. 19 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 21 a $400 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP, 22 a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 23 (9th Cir. 1999). 24 Plaintiff lists monthly household living expenses as $1,564.00 and household 25 income as $1,199. (ECF 2 at 2, 5.) Plaintiff is not currently employed, but plaintiff’s spouse 26 earns the bulk of the household through employment and plaintiff supplements that with 27 $119 in public assistance. (Id. at 1-2.) The couple has $300 cash on hand, and have to seek 28 assistance from family after finding themselves “short” every month. (Id. at 2, 5.) Plaintiff 1 owns a car worth $10,000 and a house worth $280,000. (Id. at 3.) Despite significant home 2 and auto assets, the Court finds that plaintiff’s negative income and cash history 3 sufficiently shows an inability to pay the initial $400 fee. 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 5 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 6 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 7 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 8 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth 9 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 10 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 11 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 12 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” 13 (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of 14 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] 15 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social 16 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, 17 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration 18 and citation omitted). 19 Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim. Plaintiff recounts the procedural history before 20 the Social Security Administration, which appears to have exhausted the available 21 administrative remedies. (ECF 1, at 2.) Plaintiff identifies the disability’s nature— 22 “cerebrovascular disease with a history of a stroke”—which began in late 2017 and was 23 post-surgery in March 2018 with “residual left sided weakness and dizziness” and an 24 alleged raft of other complications. (Id.) Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Administration 25 gave “limited weight” to a treating physician opinion which stated plaintiff suffered from 26 an inability to sit or walk for enough time during a workday to find employment. (Id. at 3.) 27 Because surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff’s complaint has enough. 28 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Lenz v. Colvin, No. 16- 1 || cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (‘In social security 2 ||appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must provide a statement 3 |/identifying the basis of the plaintiff's disagreement with the Social Security 4 || Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to 5 || relief.’” (citation omitted)). 6 Conclusion 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the 8 || filing fee. 9 Dated: October 7, 2020 10 ll Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28