Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01520/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01520-0/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

17cv1520-JLS (AGS)

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

NUBA ELENA JAMMA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1520-JLS (AGS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; AND (2) DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Nuba Elena Jamma’s Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has timely filed an action 

requesting that this Court review the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of 

benefits. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff argues that the SSA’s decision was not supported 

by substantial evidence.

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. 

Case 3:17-cv-01520-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv1520-JLS (AGS)

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

§ 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 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 currently has $0 in her account and $0 in securities, but during the past twelve 

months had an average monthly income of $194 from public assistance. (See generally IFP 

Mot.) Plaintiff also claims that her spouse receives a monthly income of $907.00 from 

retirement benefits. (Id. at 2.) However, Plaintiff notes that their joint monthly expenses 

exceed $1,300. Given the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not have the means 

to pay the statutory 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).

Case 3:17-cv-01520-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv1520-JLS (AGS)

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

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 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 3:17-cv-01520-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv1520-JLS (AGS)

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 seeks review of her SSA benefits denial. (See generally

Compl.) Plaintiff alleges that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the 

SSA Commissioner’s decision, (id. ¶¶ 9(a)–(b)), and that the evidence in the record 

supports only the finding that Plaintiff is and has been continuously disabled as defined in 

the Social Security Act, (id. ¶ 9(c)). However, these bare recitations are not enough to 

survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See, e.g., Harris v. 

Colvin, No. SACV 14-0383-GW (RNB), 2014 WL 1095941, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 

2014) (concluding that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief where the complaint 

did not specify why the ALJ’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence or the 

reasons why the proper legal standards were not applied); Montoya, 2016 WL 890922, at

*2 (dismissing for failure to state a claim under screening duty and explaining that 

“Plaintiff fails to state the nature of his disability or when it commenced, alleging only that 

‘[Plaintiff] is, and at all times relevant to this action, disabled as that term is defined in the 

Social Security Act.’ . . . . Moreover, Plaintiff alleges merely that the Commissioner’s 

decision to deny her benefits was wrong without any indication as to why it was wrong 

other than a recitation of the general standards that govern this Court’s review of that 

decision” (first alteration in original)). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to

/ / /

 

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 3:17-cv-01520-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv1520-JLS (AGS)

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

state a claim for relief, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and DISMISSES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint.

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

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

GRANTED; and

2. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint on or before thirty days from the date on 

which this Order is electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended 

complaint within the time provided, the Court may enter a final order dismissing this civil 

action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01520-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5