Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02791/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02791-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16cv2791-JLS (BLM)

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

MELISSA TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2791-JLS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Melissa Torres’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP Mot.”). (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has filed an action requesting that this Court 

review and reverse the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of benefits. 

(Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.)

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 

Case 3:16-cv-02791-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16cv2791-JLS (BLM)

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

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that her sole source 

of income is from disability payments in the amount of $800 a month. (IFP Mot. 2.)

Plaintiff is not employed, nor has she been for the past two years, and Plaintiff has no cash 

or other assets. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff estimates her monthly expenses to be $358, and notes 

that her monthly income from disability payments is “about to stop . . . .” (Id. at 5.) Given 

the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s application demonstrates she is unable 

to pay the requisite fees and costs. 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 

Case 3:16-cv-02791-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16cv2791-JLS (BLM)

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

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 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).

In social security appeals, a complaint challenging the denial of benefits “must 

provide a statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social 

Security Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief.” Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at 

*2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim 

for relief where the complaint merely alleged that the Commissioner’s decision to deny

benefits was wrong without explaining why, and instead simply recited the general

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02791-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16cv2791-JLS (BLM)

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

standards governing review of that decision).1“The purpose of the complaint is to briefly 

and plainly allege facts supporting the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision 

was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (citing Brown v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-056-

JL, 2011 WL 3664429, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011)).

In the present case, Plaintiff appeals the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s 

claim for disability benefits. (Compl. at 1.) However, Plaintiff states only the following 

regarding her claim:

I request review of my claim for Social Security disability benefits. The 

administrative law judge issued a decision dated July 1, 2015 denying my 

claim. The Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied my 

request for review of the administrative law judge’s decision by notice dated 

September 7, 2016. My social security number is . . . .

(Compl. at 1.) As set forth above, this statement insufficient to survive the sua sponte 

screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

1 The Montoya court listed the requirements for social security appeal complaints: (1) Plaintiff must 

establish that he has exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the 

civil action commenced within 60 days after notice of final decision; (2) the complaint must list the judicial 

district in which the Plaintiff resides; (3) the complaint must state how Plaintiff is disabled and when 

Plaintiff became disabled; and (4) the complaint must contain a short and plain statement that identifies 

why the Plaintiff disagrees with the Commissioner’s determination and show that the Plaintiff is entitled 

to relief. 2016 WL 890922, at *2. 

Case 3:16-cv-02791-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16cv2791-JLS (BLM)

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court: 

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to § 1915(a), (ECF No. 2), 

and;

2. DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff MAY 

FILE an amended complaint within forty-five days of the date on which this Order is 

electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the time 

provided, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02791-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5