Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02200/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02200-0/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-2200-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

Arlene Elizabeth MASTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew M. SAUL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-cv-2200-AGS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS (ECF No. 3), DISMISSING 

THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, AND CLOSING THE 

CASE, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). While plaintiff qualifies to 

proceed without paying the initial filing fee, her complaint fails to state a claim for relief. 

So, the Court grants plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismisses the complaint without prejudice. 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 

a $400 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915. But if granted the right to proceed IFP, 

a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 

(9th Cir. 1999). 

Here plaintiff lists household living expenses as $986.89 and household income as 

$931.72. (ECF No. 3, at 2, 4.) All of plaintiff’s income is from disability benefits, and 

plaintiff is not currently employed. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff owns one car worth $2000 and has 

$40 in a bank account. (Id. at 2-3.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff 

has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial $400 fee.

Case 3:19-cv-02200-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-cv-2200-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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening

When reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it 

if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 

(9th Cir. 2000). In the Social Security context, a plaintiff’s complaint must set forth 

sufficient facts to support the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 

incorrect. “[T]o survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish 

that she has exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that 

the civil action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision,” 

(2) “indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” (3) “state the nature of 

plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled,” and (4) “identify[] 

the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social 

Security Administration and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Varao v. Berryhill, 

No. 17-cv-02463-LAB-JLB, 2018 WL 4373697, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (alteration 

and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations meet the first and

second requirements, but the complaint is silent as to the nature of her disability, the date 

on which she allegedly became disabled, and her disagreement with the Social Security 

Administration’s determination. (See ECF No. 1, at 2-3.) While plaintiff’s complaint 

contains some boiler-plate language (see id.), there is not enough detail to allow the Court 

to determine what her specific disagreements with the Social Security Administration 

really are. Although surviving § 1915(e) is a “low threshold,” plaintiff is still required to 

plausibly allege that she is disabled by identifying her purported disability and suggesting 

why she is entitled to relief. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); see 

also Lenz v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-1755-JLS (PCL), 2016 WL 5682557, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 

2016) (“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 

Case 3:19-cv-02200-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-cv-2200-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

Security Administration’s determination and must make a showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief.’” (citation omitted)).

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants plaintiff IFP status and waives the 

filing fee. But the complaint fails to state a claim and thus is dismissed without prejudice 

under § 1915(e). The Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiff may automatically reopen 

the case by submitting an amended complaint by January 3, 2020.

Dated: November 25, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02200-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3