1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MADELINE M. GLASOE, Case No.: 23-CV-1035-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 19 Madeline M. Glasoe (“Plaintiff”) files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the 20 Complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. 21 section 1915(e), as required when a litigant files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s submission, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion and explains 23 below. 24 I. MOTION FOR IFP 25 Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under

. 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United 27 States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28

(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire 1 fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under

(a). 2 See Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed 3 IFP under § 1915 must be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under 4 penalty of perjury, that includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial 5 fees or give security. Civ. L.R. 3.2.a. 6 Plaintiff purports she is not employed, does not receive any income or public 7 assistance, does not own any assets, and her monthly expenses add up to $500.00 per 8 month. Taken together, these representations suggest Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing 9 fee. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown an inability to pay the filing fee. 10 II. SCREENING UNDER

(e) 11 Under

(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must 12 rule on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district 14 court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must 15 dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief 16 may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28

(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 18 (noting

(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez,

19 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 20 that fails to state a claim.”). 21 Social security appeals are not exempt from the section 1915(e) screening 22 requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see 23 also Lopez,

(“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 24 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 25 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland,

, at *3. “A complaint 26 merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 27 a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin,

, at *2 (D. Nev. 28 June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner’s denial of disability 1 |/benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the 2 || Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland,

, at *2 (collecting 3 || cases) (emphasis added). 4 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 5 sufficiently but barely satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating points of 6 she assigns to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1 {| 6-7.) 7 HI. CONCLUSION 8 Plaintiff's Motion for IFP is GRANTED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: June 9, 2023 11 | ' /\ ) Se 12 Hon. William V. Gallo 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28