Ahrari v. Kijakazi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Habibullah Khwaja AHRARI, Case No.: 20-cv-1971-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 initial review of the complaint shows it states a claim for 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 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 lists monthly household living expenses as $1,564.00 and household income as $1,199. (ECF 2 at 2, 5.) Plaintiff is not currently employed, but plaintiff’s spouse earns the bulk of the household through employment and plaintiff supplements that with $119 in public assistance. (Id. at 1-2.) The couple has $300 cash on hand, and have to seek assistance from family after finding themselves “short” every month. (Id. at 2, 5.) Plaintiff owns a car worth $10,000 and a house worth $280,000. (Id. at 3.) Despite significant home and auto assets, the Court finds that plaintiff’s negative income and cash history 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 if 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 that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” (2) “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).

19 Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim. Plaintiff recounts the procedural history before the Social Security Administration, which appears to have exhausted the available administrative remedies. (ECF 1, at 2.) Plaintiff identifies the disability’s nature— “cerebrovascular disease with a history of a stroke”—which began in late 2017 and was post-surgery in March 2018 with “residual left sided weakness and dizziness” and an alleged raft of other complications. (Id.) Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Administration gave “limited weight” to a treating physician opinion which stated plaintiff suffered from 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- || cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (‘In social security ||appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits ‘must provide a statement |/identifying the basis of the plaintiff's disagreement with the Social Security || Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to || relief.’” (citation omitted)).

6 Conclusion 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the || filing fee.

9 Dated: October 7, 2020 ll Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge