United States District Court, D. Nevada
LATRINA C. COX, Plaintiff,
ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER [MOTION/APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO.1)]
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is Plaintiff Latrina C. Coxâs Motion/Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1).
In Forma Pauperis Application
asserts in her application to proceed in forma
pauperis that she receives $40.00 from food stamps, $1,
121.00 from housing assistance, $50.00 for child support, and
$1, 5420.00 from SSI for her children. Her monthly expenses
total $3, 018.00 which exceeds her monthly income of $2,
753.00. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request
to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to
Screening the Complaint
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a
court must additionally screen a complaint pursuant to §
1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority
to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(internal quotations and citation omitted).
considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon
which relief can be granted, all material allegations in the
complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Russell v.
Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a
court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the
plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with
directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear
from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could
not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation
complaint arises from an unfavorable decision by the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration (hereinafter
“Commissioner”). (ECF NO. 1-1). Plaintiff asserts
that she is “disabled as that term is defined in the
Social Security Act.” Id. The Commissioner
denied her application for lack of disability. Id.
Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner to
this court, and requests that this court reverse that
decision, or in the alternative, remand this matter for a new
may appeal to this court the Commissioner’s denial of
her application for either Disability Insurance Benefits or
Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act, respectively. See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 401-433, 1381-82c. This Court has jurisdiction
over the matter. Id. Construing plaintiff’s
allegations in light most favorable to plaintiff, the court
finds that plaintiff has asserted a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See Russell, 621 F.2d at 1039.
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff is permitted to maintain
the action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment
of any additional fees, costs, or security. This order
granting in forma pauperis status does not extend to
the issuance of subpoenas at government expense.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court file the
Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and serve the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration by sending a copy of the
summons and Complaint (ECF NO. 1-1) by certified mail to: (1)
the Attorney General of the United States, Department of
Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4400,
Washington, D.C. 20530; and (3) Office of the Regional Chief
Counsel, Region IX, Social Security Administration, 160 Spear
St., Suite 899, San Francisco, CA 94105-1545.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court issue summons to the
United States Attorney for the District of Nevada and deliver
the summons and Complaint ...