Loera v. Saul

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA David Rojas LOERA, Case No.: 20-cv-1396-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS (ECF 2) Andrew M. SAUL 14 Defendant.

16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without paying the filing fee and states a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). So the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion and lets his case proceed.

19 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay a $400 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

24 Plaintiff has $600.00 in his bank account, $1,254.00 in monthly expenses, and $1,576.29 in monthly income. (ECF 2, at 2, 5.) Virtually all of plaintiff’s income derives from retirement benefits and public assistance, and he is not currently employed. (Id. at 1-2.) He also owns a car worth $9,000.00. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has therefore shown an inability to pay the $400 filing fee.

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 2 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 3 it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant ||immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 ||(9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff's complaint must set forth ||sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was |{incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 8 she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 9 civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” 10 “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of || plaintiff's disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] ||the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social |}Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, || No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration || and citation omitted).

16 Plaintiff's complaint satisfies the § 1915(e) screening. Procedurally, he satisfies the 17 and second factors. (ECF 1, at 1-2.) He claims he has had disabling arthritis and || diabetes since November 1, 2012. Ud. at 2-3.) And he identifies his disagreements with the || Social Security Administration’s determination: the ALJ’s purported errors in rejecting his || “testimony regarding pain, symptom [sic], and limitation [sic].” Ud. at 2-4.)

21 Conclusion 22 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the 23 filing fee. The complaint also satisfies the § 1915(e) requirements, so the case may proceed.

24 Dated: July 28, 2020 25 = 2 6 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge