Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00497/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00497-0/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

17cv497-JLS (BLM)

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

STEVEN MICHAEL ELDRIDGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv497-JLS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Steven Michael Eldridge’s Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Mot.”). (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has filed an action requesting that 

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

benefits, or in the alternative, remand the matter for a new hearing. (Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 

1.)

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. 

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 

Case 3:17-cv-00497-JLS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv497-JLS (BLM)

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

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 she is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that his sole source 

of income is from public assistance in the amount of $194.00 a month. (IFP Mot. 2.)

Plaintiff is not currently employed, has no cash or other assets, and indicates that his 

“parents help [him] with [his] rent and bill[s]” because he “only receive[s] food stamps.”

(Id. at 2–3, 5.) Plaintiff estimates his monthly expenses to be $333. (Id. at 5.) Although 

Plaintiff has failed to fill out several parts of his IFP Application, (id. at 5 (questions 9, 10, 

13)), the Court nonetheless concludes that Plaintiff’s application demonstrates he is unable 

to pay the requisite fees and costs regardless of any of Plaintiff’s potential responses to the 

unanswered questions. 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-00497-JLS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv497-JLS (BLM)

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-00497-JLS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv497-JLS (BLM)

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 appeals the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s 

claim for disability benefits. (Compl. at 1.) However, Plaintiff states only generalized legal 

conclusions unsupported by any facts whatsoever indicating, for instance, why Plaintiff 

contends the ALJ’s decision was erroneous, why Plaintiff was “disabled as that term is 

defined in the Social Security Act[,]” or what “[n]ew and material evidence for which good 

cause exists for failure to submit earlier exists [that] warrants a remand of this matter for 

further proceedings.” (See id. at 1–3.)

As set forth above, this statement is insufficient to survive the sua sponte screening 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court:

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to § 1915(a), (ECF No. 2), 

and;

2. DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff MAY 

FILE an amended complaint within thirty days of the date on which this Order is

/ / /

/ / /

 

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-00497-JLS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv497-JLS (BLM)

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

electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the time 

provided, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00497-JLS-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5