1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YVONNE W., Case No.: 22-cv-00390-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA Commissioner of Social Security, Social 15 PAUPERIS; AND Security Administration, 16 Defendant. (2) SCREENING AND DISMISSING 17 COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

(e)(2) 18 19 [ECF Nos. 1; 2] 20 21 Plaintiff Yvonne W. (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Complaint against the Acting 22 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) seeking judicial review of the 23 Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income 24 benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 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 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 her affidavit of assets: She is unemployed and 5 receives no monthly income except for $490 in public assistance. (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff is not 6 married. (Id. ¶ 3.) Other than $5 in a Bank of America checking account, Plaintiff has no 7 other assets. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) 8 Plaintiff’s total monthly expenses average $480 for: food ($330); clothing ($50); 9 laundry and dry-cleaning ($10); transportation ($60); and recreation ($30). (Id. ¶ 8.) 10 Therefore, on average, Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds her monthly expenses by only 11 $10. Based on this information, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets 12 sufficiently demonstrates that she lacks the financial resources to pay the $402 filing fee 13 without causing undue financial hardship. Accordingly, Plaintiff is given leave to proceed 14 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 [she] has exhausted [her] administrative 17 remedies pursuant to

(g) and that the civil action was 18 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. 19 Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when 20 the plaintiff claims [she] became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s 21 disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security 22 Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 23 24 Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 25 8, 2016). 26 Expanding on the fourth requirement, a complaint fails to state a claim if it simply 27 states that the Commissioner was wrong in denying a plaintiff benefits, for “[e]very 28 plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the 1 Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland,

, at *3. While § 405(g) does 2 not require that a complaint spell out the basis upon which relief might be granted, Rule 3 8(a) requires a civil plaintiff to assert the basis upon which he grounds his claim. Brown 4 v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-056-JL,

, at *2 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011). Thus, 5 “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must [include] a 6 brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was 7 wrong.” Hoagland,

, at *2. 8 B. Discussion 9 Applying these four basic requirements to the Complaint here, the Court finds that 10 the Complaint is insufficient with respect to the third and fourth requirements. As to the 11 third requirement, the Complaint does not state the nature of Plaintiff’s disability and when 12 she became disabled; it simply states that she is “a disabled person who suffers from 13 multiple physical and mental disabilities.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 8.) As to the fourth requirement, 14 the Complaint fails to allege any specific reasons for why the decision of the 15 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) should be reversed or remanded. Instead, the 16 Complaint only includes conclusory allegations, such as the ALJ’s decision denying 17 Plaintiff’s claim “does not meet substantial evidence” and that the ALJ “improperly applied 18 the law to the facts of the case.” (See

¶¶ 19–22.) These statements do not identify the 19 nature of Plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s decision. See Montoya,

890922, at *2; see also Harris v. Colvin,

, *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) 21 (finding complaint failed to state a claim where it failed to “specify . . . the respects in 22 which [plaintiff] contend[ed] that the ALJ’s findings [we]re not supported by substantial 23 evidence and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied.”) Accordingly, the Court 24 is obligated to sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant 25 to

(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby: 28 (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2); and 1 (2) sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice and 2 || with leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff 3 || shall have until April 20, 2022 to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies set 4 || forth above. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 25, 2022 i U Burthendde 8 n. Jill L. Burkhardt 9 ited States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28