Aychillhum v. SSI

[10] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [11] SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 MARSHA M. AYCHILLHUM, Case No. 24-cv-02018-BAS-KSC 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 (1) GRANTING MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA 16 PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); AND SSA; SSI, 17 (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 18 Defendants. [19] 20 Plaintiff Marsha M. Aychillhum is self-represented. She filed this lawsuit 21 concerning her Social Security Retirement and Supplemental Security Income. (ECF 22 No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)—without 23 paying the filing fee. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons explained below, the Court grants 24 Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and dismisses her Complaint with leave to amend. 25 I. Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay 27 the required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to 1 the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th 2 Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 3 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 4 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well5 settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. 6 DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 , 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the 7 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which 8 states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and 9 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 10 339. At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to 11 assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense . . . the 12 remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull 13 his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 14 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant 15 can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., 16 Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on 17 other grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a 18 district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a 19 prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from 20 family). Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the 21 course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., No. CIV S-06-0791, 2009 22 WL 311150 , at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321 ); 23 see also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding 24 that a plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be 25 required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Finally, the facts as to 26 the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and 27 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 1 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court is persuaded she 2 qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff has minimal income, including disability payments. 3 (IFP Mot. 2.) She is not employed and lists negligible financial assets. (Id. 2–3.) 4 Her expenses approximate or exceed her minimal income. (Id. 4.) Under these 5 circumstances, the Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees 6 would impair her ability to obtain the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339 . 7 Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2). 8 II. Jurisdiction 9 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 10 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized 11 by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial 12 decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Hence, “district courts have an 13 ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo 14 Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States 15 v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 16 Plaintiff is seeking benefits governed by Title II and Title XVI of the Social 17 Security Act. Title II “provides old-age, survivor, and disability benefits to insured 18 individuals irrespective of financial need.” Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74 , 75 19 (1988). By comparison, Title XVI provides Supplemental Security Income benefits 20 “to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled regardless of their 21 insured status.” Id. 22 Judicial review of claims arising under the Social Security Act is authorized 23 by 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). “The Supreme Court has stated that § 405(g) ‘clearly limits 24 judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final decision of the Secretary 25 made after a hearing.’” Subia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 26 2001) (emphasis in original) (quoting Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 , 97 27 (1977)). A related provision, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (h), channels “virtually all legal attacks 1 Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 13 (2000); see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 2 327 (1976) (“The only avenue for judicial review is 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), which 3 requires exhaustion of the administrative remedies provided under the Act as a 4 jurisdictional prerequisite.”). 5 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint includes few details. She alleges she receives $448 6 in Social Security Retirement and $748 in Supplemental Security Income, and the 7 amounts have “not been increased or decreased.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges she 8 is entitled to more Social Security Retirement and believes the Social Security 9 Administration has “discriminated against [her].” (Id.) She alleges she has asked for 10 “retirement papers” but has not received them. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot go forward because she has not completed all the 12 required steps with the Social Security Administration before filing a lawsuit. A 13 plaintiff seeking Social Security benefits must generally proceed through a four-step 14 process before she can ask a federal court for review. Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 15 471, 475–76 (2019). “First, the claimant must seek an initial determination as to 16 [her] eligibility. Second, the claimant must seek reconsideration of the initial 17 determination. Third, the claimant must request a hearing, which is conducted by an 18 [Administrative Law Judge]. Fourth, the claimant must seek review of the 19 [Administrative Law Judge’s] decision by the Appeals Council.” Id. at 476 . 20 Ultimately, “[i]f a claimant has proceeded through all four steps on the merits . . . § 21 405(g) entitles [her] to judicial review in federal district court.” Id. 22 If Plaintiff believes the Social Security Administration is incorrectly 23 calculating her Social Security Retirement or Supplemental Security Income 24 benefits, then she must first raise this issue with the agency and proceed through the 25 required steps mentioned above. Plaintiff mentions difficulty receiving “retirement 26 papers.” She can apply for benefits online at ssa.gov, by phone, or in person at any 27 Social Security office. 1 Further, if the Social Security Administration has denied Plaintiff’s request for 2 retirement benefits, then she must ask the agency to reconsider its decision. 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, includes no details about any application(s) she 4 submitted to the agency, any notice(s) she received from the agency, her response, or 5 any other efforts to go through the Social Security Administration’s appeals process. 6 Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate the Court has jurisdiction. See 7 Mathews, 424 U.S. at 328–29. The Court lacks jurisdiction if she has not used her 8 administrative remedies with the Social Security Administration. See, e.g., id.; 9 Subia, 264 F.3d at 902 . Plaintiff does not show waiving the exhaustion requirement 10 is appropriate. See Udd v. Massanari, 245 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2001) 11 (explaining there is an exception for a colorable constitutional claim of a due process 12 violation). The Court thus lacks jurisdiction. 13 Overall, the Court simply needs more information from Plaintiff for it to 14 determine if this case can proceed. Therefore, the Court dismisses her Complaint. 15 See, e.g., Randall v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Serv., No. 4:24-CV-03485-KAW, [16] 2024 WL 5378334 , at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024) (dismissing claim for nonpayment 17 of benefits for failure to exhaust administrative remedies). The Court gives Plaintiff 18 leave to amend her Complaint to provide more information. 19 III. Conclusion 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 21 IFP (ECF No. 2). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend 22 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 23 If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she must do so by March 7, 24 2025. Plaintiff should title her filing a First Amended Complaint, name the Acting 25 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration as the defendant, and include 26 more information about her claim. In particular, Plaintiff should include allegations 27 addressing whether she has attempted to appeal this issue with the Social Security 1 ||Amended Complaint, including correspondence to or from the Social Security 2 || Administration. The Court cautions Plaintiff that if she does not file a First Amended 3 || Complaint, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: February 12, 2025 Hén. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 7 United States District Court