1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL P., Case No.: 21-cv-01063-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA SECURITY, 15 PAUPERIS; AND Defendant. 16 (2) SCREENING AND DISMISSING 17 COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

(e)(2) 18

19 [ECF Nos. 1; 2]

20 21 Plaintiff Paul P. has filed a Complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security 22 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application(s) for 23 “Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits 24 for lack of disability.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) 25 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to proceed In Forma 26 Pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 27 GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion and sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint pursuant to 28

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1 I. IFP MOTION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 4 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 5

(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 6 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(a)(1). Section 1915(a)(1) provides that: 8 any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution 9 or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or 10 security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay 11 such fees or give security therefor. 12 13

(a)(1). As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 14 assets to warrant IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s 15 discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 16 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 17 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other 18 grounds by

(1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 19 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 20 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. 21 Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948)). “One need not be absolutely 22 destitute to obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States,

, 23 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with 24 some particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo,

. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 B. Discussion 2 Here, Plaintiff has not paid the $4021 filing fee required to maintain a civil action in 3 this District and has instead moved to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff attests to the 4 following under penalty of perjury in his affidavit of assets: He claims to be currently 5 employed, but he receives no income from his employment. (Id. ¶¶ 1–2.) He receives 6 $1,052 per month from unemployment payments ($852) and food stamps ($200). (Id. ¶ 1.) 7 He has no assets or bank accounts. (Id. ¶¶ 4–5.) 8 Plaintiff’s total monthly expenses average $1,050 for: rent ($650); food ($200); and 9 daily necessities ($200). (Id. ¶ 8.) Therefore, on average, Plaintiff’s monthly income 10 exceeds his monthly expenses by only $2. Plaintiff attests that he is not able to pay the fee 11 as he barely has any money. (Id. ¶ 11.) He further attests that he used his stimulus checks 12 for “extra needs.” (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets sufficiently 13 demonstrates that he lacks the financial resources to pay the $402 filing fee without causing 14 undue financial hardship. Accordingly, Plaintiff is given leave to proceed IFP. 15 II. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

(e)(2) 16 A. Legal Standard 17 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of

(a) is subject 18 to a mandatory review by the Court and sua sponte dismissal if it fails to state a claim upon 19 which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B)(ii). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only 20 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint that fails to state a claim.” 21 Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Complaints in 22 social security appeal cases are not exempt from § 1915(e)’s screening requirement. 23

24 1 See

(a) (“The clerk of each district shall require the parties 25 instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court . . . to pay a filing fee of $350, 26 except that on application for writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5.”); CASD Fee Schedule, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/courtinfo/Fees%20of%20the%20U. 27 S.%20District%20Court%20(CASD).pdf (effective Mar. 1, 2021) (imposing a $52 28 administrative fee for a civil action, suit, or proceeding). 1 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12–cv–00973–SMS,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 2 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as 3 an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”); cf. Calhoun 4 v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) 5 are not limited to prisoners.”). 6 Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all complaints must contain a 7 “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required in a complaint, but 9 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 10 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Although a 11 complaint in a social security disability appeal may differ in some ways from complaints 12 in other civil cases, it is “not exempt from the general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 13

, at *2. Courts in this District and other districts in the Ninth Circuit 14 look for four basic requirements when screening a social security disability complaint for 15 failure to state a claim: 16 First, the plaintiff must establish that he has exhausted [his] administrative remedies pursuant to

(g) and that the civil action was 17 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 18 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when 19 the plaintiff claims [he] became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain 20 a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security 21 Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 22 23 Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 24 8, 2016). 25 Expanding on the fourth requirement, a complaint fails to state a claim if it simply 26 states that the Commissioner was wrong in denying a plaintiff benefits, for “[e]very 27 plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the 28 Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland,

, at *3. Thus, “a social security 1 complaint that merely parrots the standards used in reversing or remanding a case is not 2 sufficient to withstand a screening pursuant to [§] 1915(e).” Montoya,

, 3 at *2. Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits 4 must [include] a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s 5 decision was wrong.” Hoagland,

, at *2. 6 B. Discussion 7 Applying these four basic requirements to the Complaint here, the Court finds that 8 the Complaint is insufficient with respect to the third and fourth requirements. The 9 Complaint fails to allege the nature of Plaintiff’s disability and when Plaintiff claims he 10 became disabled. The Complaint also fails to allege any specific reasons for why the 11 decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) should be reversed or remanded. 12 Instead, the Complaint “merely parrots” the standard of judicial review by alleging that the 13 ALJ’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim was not “not supported by substantial evidence 14 and [was] contrary to law and regulation.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.) This boilerplate statement 15 does not identify the nature of Plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s decision. See 16 Montoya,

, at *2. Accordingly, the Court is obligated to sua sponte 17 dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii). 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// I Hl. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby: 3 (1) GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Motion (ECF No. 2); and 4 (2) sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice and 5 || with leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff 6 ||shall have until July 9, 2021 to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies set 7 || forth above. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: June 14, 2021 .

11 n. Jill L. Burkhardt ited States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28