1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DETRA H., Case No.: 3:22-cv-01162-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v.

14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of [ECF No. 3] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the 20 administrative decision denying her application for Social Security disability insurance 21 benefits. ECF No. 1. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to 22 Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to

. ECF No. 3. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) presents two issues for the Court’s 25 consideration. First, the Court must determine whether the applicant has properly shown 26 an inability to pay the $400 filing fee under

(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 27

(9th Cir. 1999). To that end, each applicant seeking to proceed IFP 28 must provide the Court a signed affidavit including a statement of all the applicant’s assets. 1 CivLR 3.2(a). Second, pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must evaluate 2 whether the Complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted before 3 the Complaint is served. See Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) 4 not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that 5 fails to state a claim.”). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 8 A person need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. 9 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948). To meet the requirements of 28

(a), “[] an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of [her] 11 poverty ‘pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide’ [herself] and 12 dependents ‘with the necessities of life.’” Adkins, 355 U.S. at 339 (internal quotations 13 omitted). To establish poverty, the facts must be stated “with some particularity, 14 definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981). 15 District courts must exercise their discretion and evaluate a person’s poverty based upon 16 available facts. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1991) rev'd on 17 other grounds,

(1993). 18 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 3) contains a sworn statement consisting of her 19 income and assets. According to her sworn statement, Plaintiff’s income consists of only 20 $200 per month in CalFresh public assistance payments. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff reports she has 21 $12.00 in her checking account, and her only asset is a motor vehicle worth $4,050. Id. at 22 2-3. Based on this information, the Court finds Plaintiff has met the required showing of 23 indigence under Section 1915(a), and that she is unable to pay the $400 filing fee. 24 B. Screening under

(e) 25 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28

is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 27 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez,

. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss 28 complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 1 granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28

(e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening 3 requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12-cv-00973-SMS,

, at *1 4 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 5 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits 6 [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) 7 (affirming that “the provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); 8 Lopez,

(“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, 9 not just those filed by prisoners.”). 10 Rule 8 sets forth the federal pleading standard used to determine whether a complaint 11 states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v. 12 Iqbal,

, 678–79 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain a “short and plain 13 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Bell Atlantic Corp. 14 v. Twombly,

(2007) (noting that “detailed factual allegations” are not 15 required, but a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 16 recitation of the elements of a cause of action” to justify relief). A proper pleading “does 17 not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the- 18 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions 19 . . . will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 20 factual enhancement.” Iqbal,

(internal citations and quotations omitted) 21 (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). When a plaintiff fails to provide “enough facts to state a 22 claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the Court must either dismiss a portion, or the 23 entirety of the complaint. Twombly,

; Hoagland,

, at *1. 24 For example, in social security cases, “[t]he plaintiff must provide a statement 25 identifying the basis of the plaintiff's disagreement with the ALJ’s determination and must 26 make a showing that he is entitled to relief, ‘in sufficient detail such that the Court can 27 understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can meaningfully screen the 28 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).’” Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 19cv2431-JLB,

1169671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (quoting Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB- 2 NJK,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015)). “Every plaintiff appealing an 3 adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong. The 4 purpose of the complaint is to briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal 5 conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland,

, 6 at *3 (dismissing conclusory complaint in IFP screening process for failure to state a 7 plausible claim for relief due to insufficient factual allegations). 8 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently 9 stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff appeals the 10 Commissioner’s denial of her benefits application pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11 § 405(g) on the grounds that: (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not state clear 12 and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom and limitation testimony that Plaintiff 13 could not maintain employment due to anxiety and panic attacks, and that she would be 14 off-task for 25% of the day; (2) the ALJ did not properly weigh the medical evidence 15 indicating that Plaintiff had additional limitations, as documented in treatment notes; (3) 16 the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is able to perform work is not supported by substantial 17 evidence, because the occupations identified as ones she can perform at step five of the 18 ALJ’s sequential evaluation process conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; 19 (4) the ALJ erred in accepting obsolete occupations from the vocational expert; and (5) 20 new and material evidence establishes greater limitations than those assessed by the ALJ. 21 ECF No. 1 at 3. The Court finds these allegations sufficiently specific to state a claim for 22 reversal or remand of the Commissioner’s decision. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS the IFP Motion (ECF 25 No. 3). In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and

(d), the Court 26 DIRECTS the Clerk to issue the summons and to send Plaintiff a blank United States 27 Marshal Service (“USMS”) Form 285 along with certified copies of this Order and her 28 Complaint (ECF No. 1). Once Plaintiff receives this “IFP Package,” the Court ORDERS 1 ||her to complete the Form 285 and forward all documents in the package to the USMS. 2 Upon receipt, the USMS will serve a copy of the Complaint and summons on Defendant 3 directed by Plaintiff on the USMS Form 285. The United States will advance all costs 4 || of service. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 || Dated: August 10, 2022 ° □□□□ 10 Honorable Allison H. Goddat 11 United States Magistrate Juds 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28