United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(DOC. NO. 3)
Anthony J.Battaglia, United States District Judge.
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.
MOTION FOR IFP
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 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.
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.
SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
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.”).
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 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).
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. (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.
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 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.
IS SO ORDERED.