Munoz v. Saul ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RAUL M., Case No.: 20-cv-2378-AGS 7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 8 v. (ECF 2) 9 Andrew M. SAUL, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 13 without paying the initial filing fee, and his complaint states a claim for relief. So, the Court 14 grants plaintiff’s motion. 15 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 16 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 17 a filing fee of $402. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)1. But if granted the right to proceed in forma 18 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 19 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 Here, plaintiff and his spouse have a total of $77 in cash and $1,328.52 in the bank. 21 (ECF 2, at 2.) Each month, plaintiff receives $143 in disability and $585 in unemployment, 22 and his spouse receives $571 in unemployment and $254 in public assistance, for a total of 23 $1,567.60. (Id.) Plaintiff’s household expenses are $1,513.40. (Id., at 5.) Plaintiff and his 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of 27 $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). 28 1 spouse also have two sons, aged 14 and 21, that rely on them for support. (Id., at 3.) The 2 Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 4 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 5 if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 7 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth 8 sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 9 incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 10 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 11 the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” (2) 12 “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of 13 plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] 14 the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social 15 Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, 16 No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration 17 and citation omitted). 18 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff 19 successfully exhausted his administrative remedies. After his application for Social 20 Security Disability benefits was denied by the Commissioner, plaintiff pursued the request 21 through an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and then the Appeals Council, which denied 22 his request for review. (ECF 1, at 1-2.) Plaintiff claims to reside in Escondido, California, 23 which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff contends that he suffers from “a 24 combination of severe physical and mental impairments,” including “chronic fatigue,” and 25 indicates that became disabled on January 15, 2016. (Id., at 2.) Finally, plaintiff identifies 26 the nature of his disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s determination, 27 arguing that the ALJ “erred by finding that Plaintiff had no severe impairments despite 28 evidence to the contrary” and “failed to develop the record where there were ambiguities 1 || from Plaintiff’s treating physician.” (/d.) Plaintiff also claims that the ALJ failed to “follow 2 ||Social Security Ruling 14-1p when evaluating Plaintiff's chronic fatigue.” (/d.) Based on 3 ||these allegations, plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for 4 || proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 5 2012). 6 Conclusion 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP Motion. 8 ||Dated: December 8, 2020 10 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28