Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01772/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01772-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

19-CV-1772-WVG 

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 

PHILIP KELLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,1

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19-CV-1772-WVG 

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

[Doc. No. 3.] 

Kelley files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) 

The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as is required when a 

plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that Kelley’s 

complaint completely fails to state a claim for relief. However, the IFP application shows 

the inability to pay the filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Kelley’s IFP motion, and the 

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

I. MOTION FOR IFP 

Kelley moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any civil 

action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for 

                                                                

1

 The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social 

Security, in as the correct named defendant.

Case 3:19-cv-01772-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19-CV-1772-WVG 

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

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 the plaintiff is 

granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 

accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 

a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. CivLR 

3.2.a. 

Here, Plaintiff has no income or assets except for an unspecified amount of food 

stamps. Therefore, based on the income and assets available to Plaintiff, the Courts finds 

he cannot afford to pay the normal fees and costs without undue hardship. 

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

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 

on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 

the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 

(“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 

that fails to state a claim.”). 

Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 

Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 

2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 

complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 

that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 

merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 

a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 

Case 3:19-cv-01772-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19-CV-1772-WVG 

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

3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 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 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 

Based on the Court’s review of the complaint, the Court finds Kelley utterly failed 

to allege any facts to state a claim for relief. His complaint lacks all detail and fails to set 

forth any basis for his contention that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong. Kelley 

cannot simply state he wishes the Court to “review my social security claim” in its entirety. 

He must identify reasons why he believes the Social Security Administration incorrectly 

determined his claim. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Kelley’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff must file and serve the first amended complaint by 

October 15, 2019. Kelley’s amended complaint should actually contain factual allegations 

and “should state specifically why the facts of his situation did not support those of the 

ALJ’s legal conclusions that he contends were not supported by substantial evidence.” 

Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *2. Kelley is strongly encouraged to seek the assistance 

of an attorney to draft and submit his next complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-01772-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3