Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02678/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02678-0/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

18-cv-2678-AJB-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

Madeline Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy A. Berryhill, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-2678-AJB-BLM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

(Doc. No. 3)

Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) 

The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as is required when a 

plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. No. 1, 3.) The Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not sufficiently state a claim for relief. Thus, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s IFP motion without prejudice, and the Complaint is DISMSSIED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND.

I. MOTION FOR IFP

Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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 the plaintiff is 

Case 3:18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-2678-AJB-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

granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 

accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 

a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. CivLR 

3.2.a. 

Plaintiff’s motion states Plaintiff receives $1,182 from general public assistance.

(Doc. No. 3 at 2.) Plaintiff’s last employment was in 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff has two minor 

children who rely on her for support. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s expenses are nearly the same 

amount as her income assistance: $1,172.00. (Id. at 5.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has 

sufficiently shown an inability to pay the filing fee, but DENIES the motion for failure to 

state a claim for relief. 

II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 

on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[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.”) The Court must dismiss 

the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“[§] 

1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint that 

fails to state a claim.”). 

Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 

Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 

2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 

complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 

that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 

merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 

Case 3:18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-2678-AJB-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

a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 

3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 

Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 

forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 

2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 

Based on the Court’s review of the complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to state 

enough facts to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff simply listed the factual and legal findings 

the ALJ made but failed to state any legal arguments. (See Doc. No. 1 at 2–3.) Plaintiff

alleges “[t]here is no substantial medical or vocational evidence” to support the ALJ’s 

conclusions; “[t]here is no substantial evidence . . . to support the Commissioner’s finding 

that plaintiff could perform any substantial gainful activity;” and that the evidence can only 

support a finding of disability.1(Id.) Plaintiff made no attempt to state how the ALJ’s 

decision was done in error; rather Plaintiff conclusively states so. For example, Plaintiff

alleges “[n]ew and material evidence for which good cause exists for failure to submit 

earlier exists.” (Id. ¶ 9(d).) Yet, Plaintiff fails to elaborate what specific “new and material 

evidence” he refers to. Thus, Plaintiff neither stated specific claims nor provided sufficient 

facts to allow Defendant to form the basis of a defense. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice and with LEAVE 

TO AMEND the complaint. Plaintiff must file and serve the first amended complaint 

(“FAC”) along with a new IFP motion by July 5, 2019. Plaintiff’s FAC “should state 

 

1 This form complaint is identical to the one filed in Irizarry v. Berryhill, S.D. Cal. No. 19-

cv-476-AJB(NLS), Copenhaver v. Berryhill, S.D. Cal. No. 18CV790-AJB(MDD) and 

Maye v. Berryhill, S.D. Cal. No. 19CV110-AJB(WVG)—and others not listed here. The 

Court denied the initial IFP motions in these cases as well. (No. 19CV476, Doc. No. 2; No. 

18CV790, Doc. No. 5; No. 18CV110, Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel is strongly urged to 

reconsider using form complaints, which fail to comply with Rule 8 and the IFP statute and

waste the Court’s resources.

Case 3:18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-2678-AJB-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

specifically why the facts of [her] situation did not support those of the ALJ’s legal 

conclusions that [she] contends were not supported by substantial evidence.” Hoagland, 

2012 WL 2521753, at *2. The FAC should also discuss what “new and material evidence” 

exists, if any. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 20, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM Document 5 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4