Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00226/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00226-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

3:17-CV-00226-AJB-JMA 

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 

LOUIS WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:17-CV-00226-AJB-JMA 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; AND 

(Doc. No. 3) 

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM 

(Doc. No. 1) 

On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff Louis Williams (“Plaintiff”), a non-prisoner, 

commenced this action against Nancy A. Berryhill (“Defendant”), to review Defendant’s 

decision denying Plaintiff’s claims for disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Both Defendant 

and an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) reviewed and denied Plaintiff’s application for 

benefits, and the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision. 

(Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff requests this Court to review and reverse Defendant’s decision, or in 

the alternative remand this matter for a new hearing. (Id. at 3.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00226-AJB-JMA Document 4 Filed 02/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:17-CV-00226-AJB-JMA 

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

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), with his Complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) For the reasons stated herein, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, but sua sponte DISMISSES the action 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

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

by original process, removal or otherwise, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 

must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, an action may proceed 

despite failure to pay the filing fee if the plaintiff submits an affidavit demonstrating that 

he should be granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see also Rodriguez 

v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Such affidavit must include a complete 

statement of the plaintiff’s personal assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in support of his IFP motion indicating that 

he has been homeless since 2009. (Doc. No. 3 at 5.) Plaintiff also states that his only form 

of income is $194 a month in public-assistance, and that he has no savings or assets. (Id. at 

1-3.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff meets the § 1915(a) requirements and 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 

II. Failure to State a Claim 

After granting in forma pauperis status, the Court must dismiss the case if the 

complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also 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” the court to dismiss 

an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim). A court “may dismiss a 

complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack of cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts 

under a cognizable legal claim.” SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 

F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). A complaint will survive a motion to 

Case 3:17-cv-00226-AJB-JMA Document 4 Filed 02/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:17-CV-00226-AJB-JMA 

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

dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

In alleging disability, the movant must prove an “inability to engage in any 

substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Specifically, a “‘physical or mental 

impairment’ is an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological 

abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory 

diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3) (emphasis added). 

Here, Plaintiff generally contends that he is disabled, but fails to allege one particular 

impairment or provide the Court with any medical documentation. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5, 9.) The 

Plaintiff further fails to allege any specific findings by the ALJ that are challenged or 

ascribed as in error. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is wholly insufficient. As 

a result, as Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient basis for a cognizable claim on which 

relief may be granted, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court DISMISSES the Complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis, but sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted 

herein within twenty-one days of this order’s issuance. Failure to do so will result in 

dismissal of this case with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 28, 2017 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00226-AJB-JMA Document 4 Filed 02/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3