Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02530/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

17-CV-2530 JLS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY JEAN JOINER SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-2530 JLS (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Nancy Jean Joiner Solomon’s Motion to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) For the following reasons 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion.

IFP MOTION

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A 

federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of 

fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is 

Case 3:17-cv-02530-JLS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-CV-2530 JLS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In support of her IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit of her financial 

status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Civil Local Rule 3.2. These statements show 

that Plaintiff does not receive any income, (IFP Mot. 2),1and that she was last employed 

in 2012, (id. at 2). Thus it appears that Plaintiff does not have the funds to pay the requisite 

filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP.

Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

“not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim”).

As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 

make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Navarette 

v. Pioneer Med. Ctr., No. 12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB), 2013 WL 139925, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Jan. 9, 2013).

All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). “[D]etermining whether a 

 

1 Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.

Case 3:17-cv-02530-JLS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-CV-2530 JLS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw 

on its experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663–64 (citing Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 556). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court 

must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see 

also Andrews v. King, 393 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152 

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the 

language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

“While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.” Hoagland 

v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) 

(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot accept legal conclusions set forth in a 

complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts. Id. (citing Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 679).

Plaintiff’s Complaint adequately states a claim for judicial review of a denial of 

Social Security benefits. (See generally Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.) Specifically, 

Plaintiff alleges that she has exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to her 

denial of benefits and now seeks judicial review of this denial based on a failure to apply 

proper legal standards and a lack of substantial evidence. (Id. at 2–5.) Taking the above 

information in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has 

pled sufficient factual information to allege a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff is therefore 

entitled to U.S. Marshal service on her behalf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the 

court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or 

deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and 

Case 3:17-cv-02530-JLS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-CV-2530 JLS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 

1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

GRANTED.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Complaint,

(ECF No. 1), upon Defendant and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal 

Form 285 for the named Defendant. In addition, the Clerk is DIRECTED to provide 

Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of her Complaint (ECF No. 

1) and the summons so that he may serve the named Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP 

Package,” Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete the Form 285 as completely and accurately 

as possible, and to return it to the United States Marshal according to the instructions 

provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying the IFP package.

3. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve a copy of the 

Complaint and summons upon the named Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USM 

Form 285. All costs of service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

4. Defendant is thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint within 

the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (noting that once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus has made a preliminary 

determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable 

opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the defendant is required to respond).

5. Plaintiff SHALL SERVE upon the Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by 

counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document 

submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff must include with the original paper to 

Case 3:17-cv-02530-JLS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-CV-2530 JLS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

be filed with the Clerk, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of 

the document was served on the Defendant, or counsel for Defendant, and the date of that 

service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk, 

or which fails to include a Certificate of Service, may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02530-JLS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5