Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02466/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02466-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0205 Appointment of Surgeon General

---

– 1 – 14cv2466 

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 

WILLIAM CARL EGAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 14-cv-2466-BAS(WVG) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 v. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

 Defendant. 

On October 17, 2014, William Carl Egan commenced this action against the 

Social Security Administration, asserting the single allegation that “Defendant owes 

retroactive pay for Oct [sic] 1996 to May 2003 for SSDI Benefits and SSI Benefits 

which was current law.” Mr. Egan’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was denied, 

but he was given the opportunity to pay the $400.00 filing fee in monthly installments 

of $50.00. On November 3, 2014, Mr. Egan made a single $50.00 payment towards 

the filing fee, but has not made any other payments since. 

// 

// 

Case 3:14-cv-02466-BAS-WVG Document 19 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 14cv2466 

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. RECONSIDERATION OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDER 

“Courts have inherent power to modify their interlocutory orders before 

entering a final judgment[.]” Balia v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 465 

(9th Cir. 1989). “In addition, [Rule 54(b) of] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

explicitly grants courts the authority to modify their interlocutory orders[.]” Id.; see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(“[I]nterlocutory orders and rulings made pre-trial by a district judge are subject to 

modification by the district judge at any time prior to final judgment.”). To determine 

whether reconsideration is warranted under Rule 54(b), the Court applies the Rule 

59(e) reconsideration standard. See Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 

958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (Whelan, J.). 

Having revisited Mr. Egan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

“liberally construing” representations made in other filings that his financial status 

requires the need for appointment of counsel, the Court reconsiders its October 20, 

2014 order.1

 The Court finds that Mr. Egan is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, 

and accordingly, VACATES the October 20, 2014 order (ECF No. 4), and GRANTS

Mr. Egan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). In light of obtaining 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court further ORDERS the Clerk of the 

Court to refund the $50.00 installment payment that Mr. Egan made towards paying 

his filing fee. 

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed 

by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent 

 

1 “The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe ‘inartful 

pleading’ of pro se litigants.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag 

v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)).

Case 3:14-cv-02466-BAS-WVG Document 19 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 14cv2466 

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 

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

. . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief[.]” 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1141 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also 28 U.S.C. 

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

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 

Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to 

the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before 

directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“[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.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 

1998) (noting the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 

As currently pleaded, Mr. Egan’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It was previously mentioned that Mr. Egan 

asserts a single allegation in the complaint stating, “Defendant owes retroactive pay 

for Oct [sic] 1996 to May 2003 for SSDI Benefits and SSI Benefits which was current 

law.” The legal and factual basis for the relief sought in that lone allegation is unclear. 

From that single allegation, the Court is unable to conclude that Mr. Egan states a 

plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Stated differently, Mr. Egan fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court VACATES the October 20, 2014 order 

(ECF No. 4), GRANTS Mr. Egan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 

2), ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to refund the $50.00 installment payment that 

Mr. Egan made towards paying his filing fee (ECF No. 8), and DISMISSES 

Case 3:14-cv-02466-BAS-WVG Document 19 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 14cv2466 

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 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for failing to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 11, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-02466-BAS-WVG Document 19 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 4