1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIZABETH TOPETE-JASPER, Case No.: 23-CV-125-WVG

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 19 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) 20 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as required when a 21 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the Complaint 22 sufficiently states a claim for relief. For its lack of factual specificity, however, the Court 23 DENIES the IFP motion without prejudice. The Court elaborates below. 24 I. MOTION FOR IFP 25 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any 26 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 27 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 28 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 1 granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 2 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 3 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 4 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civ. L.R. 5 3.2.a. 6 Plaintiff’s only source of income is Social Security SSI benefits in the amount of 7 $529.00 per month and $342.00 per month in food stamps. She also states she has not been 8 employed within the past twelve months, has $13.00 in her checking account, and her only 9 asset is a 2009 Toyota Yaris whose value is $1,000. Plaintiff adds that she lives in Section 10 8 Housing, and her husband receives Social Security SSI benefits in the amount of $342 11 per month. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to show 12 an inability to pay the filing fee because Plaintiff has not itemized her monthly expenses. 13 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 14 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 15 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 16 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 17 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 18 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 19 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 22 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 23 that fails to state a claim.”). 24 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 25 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 26 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 27 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 28 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 1 || merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 2 ||a plaintiff's pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 3 ||3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 4 || Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 5 || forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 6 || 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 7 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 8 sufficiently but barely satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating points of 9 |lerror she assigns to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1, 2:3-8.) 10 HI. CONCLUSION 11 The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || DATED: January 30, 2023 UA) Ss— 15 Hon. William V. Gallo 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28