Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02431/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02431-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1382 Eligibility for benefits

---

1 

19-cv-02431-JLB

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 

JAIME B., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19-cv-02431-JLB 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2]; AND 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff Jamie B. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 

review of the denial of his claim for social security disability insurance and supplemental 

security income benefits under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the 

complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) 

 For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP; and (2) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave 

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

Case 3:19-cv-02431-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
 2 

19-cv-02431-JLB

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

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

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 

$400.1

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

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 

prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 

(1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 

and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 

regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 

Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a caseby-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty 

percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 

854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 

available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 

U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). An adequate 

affidavit should also state supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and 

certainty,” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Jefferson 

v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)), so that the Court does not grant IFP 

to an applicant who is “financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” 

Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984); see also Alvarez v. Berryhill, 

                                               

1

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 

administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 

District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). 

Case 3:19-cv-02431-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
 3 

19-cv-02431-JLB

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

No. 18-cv-2133 W (BGS), 2018 WL 6265021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) (noting that 

courts often reject IFP applications when applicants “can pay the filing fee with acceptable 

sacrifice to other expenses”). 

Here, Plaintiff concedes that his only source of monthly income—$5,200 per month 

in disability payments—covers all of his monthly expenses. (ECF No. 2 ¶¶ 1, 11.) These 

monthly expenses appear to include a $3,300 mortgage payment (including taxes and 

insurance), a $400 car payment for a 2016 vehicle, $900 for health, vehicle, and life 

insurance, and $700 for home maintenance, food, and utilities. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) In addition to 

being able to meet his monthly expenses, Plaintiff states that he has $500 in cash and $1,500 

in his bank account. (Id. ¶ 4.) There is also no indication that Plaintiff has any dependents 

who rely on him for support. (Id. ¶ 7.) Based on this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

does not meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It appears that 

Plaintiff can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses or savings. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 

II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 

to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the Complaint 

is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B); 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.”); Glick v. Townsend, 677 F. App’x 

323, 324 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Specifically, complaints in social security appeal cases 

are subject to the Court’s § 1915(e) screening of IFP cases. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 

12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (screening is 

required “even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the 

Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”); Maryanne M. v. Saul, No. 

3:19-cv-02008-AHG, 2019 WL 5894711, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019) (same); see also 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) not only permits but 

Case 3:19-cv-02431-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
 4 

19-cv-02431-JLB

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

requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 

claim”). 

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). Although detailed factual 

allegations are not required, “[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). A complaint in a social security appeal may differ in some ways from other 

civil cases, but it is “not exempt from the general rules of civil pleading.” Hoagland, 2012 

WL 2521753, at *2.

With respect to social security appeals, several courts in the Ninth Circuit have set 

forth the following basic requirements for complaints to survive the Court’s § 1915(e) 

screening: 

First, the plaintiff must establish that [s]he has exhausted her administrative 

remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was 

commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the 

complaint must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. 

Third, the complaint must state the nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when 

the plaintiff claims she became disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain 

a plain, short, and concise statement identifying the nature of the plaintiff’s 

disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security 

Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

Montoya v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 

2016) (citations omitted). 

As for the fourth requirement, “[e]very plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 

Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 

2521753, at *3. Thus, a complaint merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was 

wrong or that “merely parrots the standards used in reversing or remanding a case” is 

insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading requirement. Montoya, 2016 WL 890922, at 

*2; see also Cribbet v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-cv-01142-BAM, 2012 WL 5308044, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012); Graves v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-00106-RFB, 2015 WL 

Case 3:19-cv-02431-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
 5 

19-cv-02431-JLB

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

357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 

Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 

forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 

2521753, at *2; see also Harris v. Colvin, No. 14-cv-0383-GW (RNB), 2014 WL 1095941, 

at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (dismissing complaint which did not “specify . . . the 

respects in which [the plaintiff] contends that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by 

substantial evidence and/or that the proper legal standards were not applied”); Gutierrez v. 

Astrue, No. 11-cv-00454-GSA, 2011 WL 1087261, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) 

(dismissing complaint which did not “provide[] any substantive reasons” for appealing the 

ALJ’s decision and did not “identif[y] any errors in [the] decision”). The plaintiff must 

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

determination and must make a showing that he is entitled to relief, “in sufficient detail 

such that the Court can understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can 

meaningfully screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).” Graves, 2015 WL 357121, at 

*2. 

Here, Plaintiff contends that a reversal or remand of Defendant’s decision is 

warranted because “the denial of [Plaintiff’s] disability claim is not supported by 

substantial evidence under the standards set forth by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and all other 

applicable laws and regulations, including the weight of the evidence, Plaintiff’s 

credibility, the medical opinions of his doctors, and any and all other applicable evidentiary 

issues, both in law and in fact.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) However, Plaintiff does not explain 

which “evidentiary issues” are at issue or elaborate on the evidence that supports his 

disability claim. These boilerplate allegations are precisely the type of conclusory 

statements that fail to satisfy the federal pleading standard. See Maryanne M., 2019 WL 

5894711, at *2 (dismissing with leave to amend identical boilerplate language). 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:19-cv-02431-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
 6 

19-cv-02431-JLB

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

Because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim, the Court must DISMISS 

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, Plaintiff shall have twentyeight (28) days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies discussed herein. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) To proceed with this lawsuit, Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing 

fee at the time of filing any amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to submit a timely 

payment, this action will be subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

Further, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to 

amend by April 7, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 10, 2020 

Case 3:19-cv-02431-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6