1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESMERALDA JENNIFER MORALES, Case No.: 22cv1205-NLS

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

13 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 3] Defendant. 16

17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Esmeralda Jennifer Morales’s complaint seeking 20 judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s decision and accompanying 21 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 3. After due 22 consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to 23 proceed IFP. 24 I. Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 25 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is subject 26 to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 27 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails 28 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 1 defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social security appeals 2 are not exempt from this § 1915(e) screening requirement. Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 3 1:12cv00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see also Calhoun 4 v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting section 1915(e)(2)(B) is 5 “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in 6 forma pauperis complaints”). 7 To pass screening, all complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the 8 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although 9 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 10 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. 11 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint in a social security appeal is “not exempt 12 from the general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. 13 Several courts within the Ninth Circuit have set forth the following basic 14 requirements for complaints to survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening: 15 First, the plaintiff must establish that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 16 commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 17 complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and 18 when the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must 19 contain a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security 20 Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 21 See, e.g., Montoya v. Colvin, No. 16cv00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. 22 Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases); Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB-NJK, 2015 23 WL 357121, *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (same). 24 As for the fourth requirement, “[e]very plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of 25 the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 26 2521753, at *3. Thus, a complaint merely stating that the Commissioner's decision was 27 wrong or that “merely parrots the standards used in reversing or remanding a case” is 28 1 insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement. See, e.g., Cribbet v. Comm’r 2 of Social Security, No. 12cv1142-BAM 2012 WL 5308044, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012); 3 Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at *2. Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the Commissioner’s 4 denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the 5 reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at 6 *2; see also Harris v. Colvin, No. 14cv383-GW (RNB), 2014 WL 1095941, *4 (C.D. 7 Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (dismissing complaint which did not “specify . . . the respects in 8 which [the plaintiff] contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial 9 evidence and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied”); Gutierrez v. Astrue, 10 No. 11cv454-GSA, 2011 WL 1087261, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) (dismissing 11 complaint which did not “provide[] any substantive reasons” for appealing the ALJ’s 12 decision and did not “identif[y] any errors in [the] decision”). The plaintiff must provide 13 a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security 14 Administration’s determination and must make a showing that she is entitled to relief, “in 15 sufficient detail such that the Court can understand the legal and/or factual issues in 16 dispute so that it can meaningfully screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).” Graves, 17 2015 WL 357121, at *2. 18 With these standards in mind, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff 19 filed her claim for benefits in 2021. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 6. The ALJ denied her benefits on 20 February 15, 2022. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred in denying her benefits 21 for two reasons: (1) that the ALJ did not clear and convincing reasons for rejecting 22 symptom and limitation testimony that Morales could not go out of her house alone due 23 to post-traumatic stress disorder; and (2) that the ALJ did not properly weigh medical 24 evidence that Morales had more limitations as expressed by her licensed marriage and 25 family therapist. Id. at ¶ 8. The Court finds that the complaint has included sufficient 26 details in this regard to survive § 1915 screening. 27 II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 28 Having found that Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening, the Court turns to her 1 ability to proceed without payment of the required fees. It is well-settled that a party 2 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 3 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The determination of indigency falls within the 4 district court’s discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th 5 Cir. 1991) (noting “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its 6 sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement 7 of indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of 8 an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 9 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 10 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). At the same time, however, “the same even- 11 handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 12 underwrite, at public expense . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in 13 whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 14 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, the facts as to the litigant’s indigency must be stated “with 15 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 16 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 17 Here, Plaintiff states that she does not have a job and her only income is monthly 18 disability in the amount of $3,548.61. ECF No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff has $0 in cash and 19 $205.96 in her checking account. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has a car worth $25,000. Id. 20 Plaintiff states that she is a single mom, with two kids aged 17 and 3. Id. at 5. Plaintiff 21 and her family incur monthly expenses including rent, utilities, food, laundry, 22 medical/dental expenses, transportation, car insurance, and a vehicle payment totaling 23 $3,531.00. Id. at 4-5. 24 Upon review of Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 25 sufficiently shown that she is unable to pay the fees associated with commencing this 26 lawsuit. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 27 III. Conclusion 28 Accordingly, for the reasons as set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 1 || to proceed in forma pauperis and ORDERS as follows: 2 1. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) upon 3 Defendant and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 4 285. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this 5 Order and a certified copy of her Complaint and the summons. Upon receipt of 6 this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285 as completely 7 and accurately as possible, and to return it to the U.S. Marshal according to the 8 instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying her IFP package. 9 Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint and summons 10 upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the form. All costs of service shall be 11 advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 12 2. Defendant shall reply to the complaint within the time provided by the applicable 13 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) and consistent with Civil Local 14 Rule 7.1(e)(6). 15 3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, 16 upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document 17 submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original 18 paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in 19 which a true and correct copy of any document was served on the Defendant or 20 counsel of Defendant and the date of service. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: August 18, 2022 23 Mie. Lo mm Hon. Nita L. Stormes 35 United States Magistrate Judge

26 27 28