Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01318/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01318-0/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 

19cv1312-LL 

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 

COREY WAYNE ZIMMERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19cv1318-LL 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

[ECF No. 3] 

 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis [ECF No. 8] and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7]. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s second motion for IFP status and 

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

In Plaintiff’s second motion for IFP status, Plaintiff clarifies he makes between 

$100-$660 a month driving for UBER. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. Plaintiff further clarifies his 

family (including his spouse and one dependent child) have monthly expenses totaling 

$3,976.00, which exceeds his family’s monthly income (Plaintiff’s spouse earns on average 

$3000 a month in addition to the $100-$600 Plaintiff earns). Id. at 2, 4-5. 

Case 3:19-cv-01318-MMP Document 9 Filed 08/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1

of 3
2 

19cv1312-LL 

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

In addition, Plaintiff states that he and his family have nothing saved and have been 

unable to make payments on their credit cards and other miscellaneous bills for the last six 

months in order to afford basic necessities. Id. at 3, 5. Based on the foregoing, the Court 

concludes Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated paying the filing fee in this case would 

impair his ability to obtain the necessities of life. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s second motion for IFP status. 

II. INITIAL SCREENING

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is almost identical to his original Complaint 

and contains many of the same deficiencies. See ECF Nos. 1 and 7. For example, although 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint now provides the date Plaintiff alleges his disability 

commenced, the First Amended Complaint still fails to state the nature of Plaintiff’s 

disability with any specificity. ECF No. 7 at 2. 

Further, in detailing the nature of Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Social Security 

Administration, Plaintiff First Amended Complaint now alleges that “[i]n specific, the 

ALJ’s decision lacks the support of substantial evidence because [the ALJ’s decision] 

impermissibly rejected [Plaintiff’s] subjective symptoms.” ECF No. 7 at 3. 

Here, Plaintiff’s single “specific” conclusory allegation is insufficient to show 

Plaintiff is entitled to relief. “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the 

Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 2:15-

cv-01086-JCM-NJK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75100, at *4 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015) 

(citations omitted). “Similarly, a social security complaint that merely parrots the 

standards used in reversing or remanding a case is not sufficient to withstand 

a screening pursuant to Section 1915(e).” Graves v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-00106-RFBNJK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9879, at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015). In this case, Plaintiff’s 

allegation is devoid of any facts showing how the ALJ’s “impermissibly rejected” 

Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and why this was in error. 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. 

Case 3:19-cv-01318-MMP Document 9 Filed 08/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2

of 3
3 

19cv1312-LL 

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 

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is granted until September 9, 2019 to file a Second 

Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint within the time 

permitted, or if the Second Amended Complaint again fails to address the defects identified 

in the current Order and Court’s prior August 13, 2019 Order, the Court may enter a final 

order dismissing the action with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 28, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-01318-MMP Document 9 Filed 08/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3

of 3