1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILIP KELLEY, Case No.: 19-CV-1772-WVG

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) GRANTING

13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,1 (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 15 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 3.]

17 Kelley files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) 18 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as is required when a 19 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that Kelley’s 20 complaint completely fails to state a claim for relief. However, the IFP application shows 21 the inability to pay the filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Kelley’s IFP motion, and the 22 Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 23 I. MOTION FOR IFP 24 Kelley moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any civil 25 action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for 26

27 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social 28 Security, in as the correct named defendant. 1 writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 2 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 3 granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 4 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 5 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 6 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. CivLR 7 3.2.a. 8 Here, Plaintiff has no income or assets except for an unspecified amount of food 9 stamps. Therefore, based on the income and assets available to Plaintiff, the Courts finds 10 he cannot afford to pay the normal fees and costs without undue hardship. 11 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 13 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 14 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 15 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 16 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 17 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 20 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 21 that fails to state a claim.”). 22 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 23 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 24 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 25 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 26 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 27 merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 28 a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 1 ||3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 2 ||Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 3 the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 4 ||2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 5 Based on the Court’s review of the complaint, the Court finds Kelley utterly failed 6 allege any facts to state a claim for relief. His complaint lacks all detail and fails to set 7 any basis for his contention that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong. Kelley 8 cannot simply state he wishes the Court to “review my social security claim” in its entirety. 9 ||He must identify reasons why he believes the Social Security Administration incorrectly 10 || determined his claim. 11 HI. CONCLUSION 12 Kelley’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED 13 || WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff must file and serve the first amended complaint by 14 || October 15, 2019. Kelley’s amended complaint should actually contain factual allegations 15 “should state specifically why the facts of his situation did not support those of the 16 || ALJ’s legal conclusions that he contends were not supported by substantial evidence.” 17 || Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. Kelley is strongly encouraged to seek the assistance 18 an attorney to draft and submit his next complaint. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || DATED: September 17, 2019 1 LM Ss 22 Hon. William V. Gallo 73 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28