1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIN R., Case No.: 22-cv-0780-AGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 12 v. (ECF 2) 13 Kilolo KIJAKAZI, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff qualifies to proceed 17 without paying the initial filing fee, and her complaint states a claim for relief. So, the 18 Court grants plaintiff’s motion. 19 I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 21 a filing fee of $402. 1 See

(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 22 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook,

, 23 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $52 administrative 27 fee. See

(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020). 28 1 Here, plaintiff owns no assets and has $26.80 in her bank accounts. (ECF 2, at 2, 4.) 2 She has no income and no monthly expenses. (Id. at 2-3.) The Court finds that plaintiff has 3 sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $402 fee. 4 II.

(e) Screening 5 When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 6 if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or seeks monetary relief from a 7 defendant immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must 9 set forth sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision 10 was incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must 11 (1) “establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final 13 decision,” (2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the 14 nature of plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) 15 “identify[] the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the 16 Social Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. 17 Berryhill, No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) 18 (alteration and citation omitted). 19 Plaintiff meets all four elements to survive a § 1915(e) screening. First, plaintiff 20 “exhausted all administrative remedies by seeking review with the Appeals Council,” 21 which denied her request on April 4, 2022. (ECF 1, at 1.) Next, plaintiff claims to reside in 22 Fallbrook, California “within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.” (Id. at 2.) The 23 complaint also states the nature of plaintiff’s disability: “severe physical and mental 24 impairments, including: chondromalacia, below the knee amputation of the right leg, 25 bipolar disorder, major depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and obesity” 26 which rendered her disabled since November 27, 2015. (Id. at 2.) Finally, plaintiff 27 identifies the nature of her disagreement with the Social Security Administration’s 28 determination, arguing that the “ALJ failed to specify the length of breaks in the RFC 1 ||assessment.” (/d. at 2.) Based on these allegations, plaintiffs complaint is sufficient to 2 ||survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the § 1915(e) screening. Wilhelm v. 3 || Rotman,

(9th Cir. 2012). 4 III. Conclusion 5 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff's IFP Motion. 6 ||Dated: June 1, 2022

8 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28