1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22CV663-BLM 11 ALYSON NICOLE GOODWIN,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 13 v. DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING OF FEES OR COSTS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 [ECF NO. 3] Defendant. 16

17 18 The instant matter was initiated on May 11, 2022, when Plaintiff filed a complaint to seek 19 judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff “requests 20 that this court [sic] reverse that decision, or in the alternative, [] remand this matter for a new 21 hearing . . .” ECF No. 1 at 3. That same day, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District 22 Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. ECF No. 3. 23 Having reviewed the complaint and motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 24 proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs and finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is 25 sufficient to survive screening. 26 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United 1 § 1915(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if 2 she is granted leave to proceed (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a), which 3 states: 4 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution 5 or defense of any suit, action or proceeding ... without prepayment of fees or 6 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 such fees or 7 give security therefor. 8 9 The determination of indigency falls within the district court's discretion. Scher v. Saul, 10

, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020) (citing California Men's Colony v. Rowland, 11

(9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds by,

(1993) (“Section 12 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 13 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency.”)). It is well-settled 14 that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787

(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jefferson v. United States,

(9th 16 Cir. 1960)). To satisfy the requirements of

(a), an affidavit of poverty is 17 sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs and 18 still be able to provide for himself and dependents with the necessities of life.

(citing Adkins 19 v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948)). At the same time, “the same 20 even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 21 underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 22 or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Azizeh R. v. Saul,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal., 23 Oct. 19, 2020) (quoting Temple v. Ellerthorpe,

(D.R.I. 1984)). District 24 courts tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable 25 sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Allen v. Kelley,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 26 (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed IFP, later required to pay $ 120 filing fee out of $ 900 27 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler,

(E.D. Pa. 1982) (IFP application 1 pay the filing fee). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant's poverty must be stated “with some 2 particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (quoting United States 3 v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981)). 4 Plaintiff has satisfied her burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to IFP status. 5 According to her Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, 6 Plaintiff is not employed, has $40.00 in her checking account, and receives $230.00 per month 7 in public assistance. ECF No. 3 at 1-2. Plaintiff has no income and lives with her mother.

at 8 5. Plaintiff spends $230.00 per month for food and $320.00 per month on transportation.

9 at 4. Further, Plaintiff has no dependents, is unmarried, and does not owe anyone money.

10 at 3. Plaintiff does not expect any major changes to her monthly income, expenses, assets, or 11 liabilities over the next twelve months. Id. at 5. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff 12 has established that she is unable to pay the $402 filing fee without impairing her ability to pay 13 for life’s necessities. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 14 SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO

(e)(2) and § 1915(a) 15 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to

(a) are 16 subject to a mandatory screening by the Court. Lopez v. Smith,

, 17 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Alamar v. Social Security, 2019 WL1258846, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18 19, 2019). A complaint should be dismissed if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) 19 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a 20 defendant who is immune from such relief.” See

(e)(2); Lopez,

1126–27. 22 To survive, all complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 23 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 24 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an 25 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 26 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). Furthermore, 27 “recitals of elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not 1 pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 2 liable for the misconduct alleged.”

at 556 (quoting Twombly,

)). “When 3 there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity, and then 4 determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

. Social security 5 appeals are not exempt from the general screening requirements for IFP cases proceeding under 6 § 1915(e). Montoya v. Colvin,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (citing Hoagland 7 v. Astrue,

, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012)). 8 In the context of a social security appeal, courts within the Ninth District have established 9 four elements necessary for a complaint to survive a screening: 10 First, the plaintiff must establish that she has exhausted her administrative 11 remedies pursuant to

(g), and that the civil action was commenced 12 within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must 13 state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and when the plaintiff claims she became 14 disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement 15 identifying the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 16 17 Skylar v. Saul,

, *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019) (quoting Montoya,

890922 at *2). With regard to element four, a complaint is insufficient if it merely states that 19 the Commissioner was wrong in denying a plaintiff benefits. See id.; see also Hoagland, 2012

at *3 (“Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 21 that the Commissioner was wrong. The purpose of the complaint is to briefly and plainly allege 22 facts supporting the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.”). Instead, 23 the “complaint . . . must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the 24 Commissioner’s decision was wrong.”

. 25 After reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established the four 26 elements necessary for a complaint to survive screening. Plaintiff states that she 27 resides within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court in San Diego, California. ECF No. 1 at 1 || with the Appeals Council[,]” and that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) May 25, 2021 2 || determination became final when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on 3 ||March 18, 2022.

. In further support of her claim, Plaintiff indicates her disability 4 || commenced on June 1, 2017, and she suffers from “medically determinable severe impairments 5 consisting of bipolar, post-traumatic stress disorder, personality disorder, polysubstance 6 || disorder, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome[.]”

. Plaintiff further identifies two 7 ||reasons why she disagrees with the Social Security Administration’s decision. First, Plaintiff 8 ||states the ALJ failed to “state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom and 9 limitation testimony that Goodwin no longer used substances[.]”

. Second, Plaintiff 10 |\/alleges the ALJ improperly weighed “new and material” medical evidence, expressed by 11 || Therapist Deborah Wagner, LMFT, supporting Plaintiff had more limitations.

12 In light of the Court's rulings, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 13 1. The United States Marshall shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed on May 11, 14 || 2022, and an accompanying summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal 15 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. 16 2. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or, if appearance has been entered by 17 || counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or document submitted for 18 || consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk 19 || of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document 20 || was served on Defendant or Defendant's counsel and the date of service. Any paper received 21 || by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to 22 |\include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: 5/18/2022 lobe Mager 25 Hon. Barbara L. Major United States Maqistrate Judde 26 27 28