Striplin v. Social Security/Supplemental Security Income

Filing 5

AMENDED 4 ORDER DENYING 2 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/28/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2012) Modified on 12/28/2012 (ndr, COURT STAFF). ***DISREGARD, SEE DOCKET NO. 6 FOR THE CORRECT ORDER***

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 AAREN WILLIAMS STRIPLIN, 5 6 No. C 12-6418 CW Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 7 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 8 Defendant. 9 ________________________________/ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Plaintiff Aaren Williams has applied to proceed in forma 12 pauperis. 13 considered all of the papers filed by Plaintiff, the Court DENIES 14 the application. The matter was decided on the papers. Having 15 The Ninth Circuit has indicated that leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is properly granted 17 only when the plaintiff has demonstrated poverty and has presented 18 a claim that is not factually or legally frivolous within the 19 definition of § 1915(e)(2)(B). 20 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 21 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). 22 to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the 23 face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or 24 without merit." 25 140 (9th Cir. 1962); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 26 1965). 27 arguable basis in fact or law." 28 See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d Thus, the court "may deny leave Id. (quoting Reece v. Washington, 310 F.2d 139, An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has "no O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617; 1 Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1379; Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 2 (9th Cir. 1984). 3 The Supreme Court has held that dismissal prior to service 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is appropriate where no legal 5 interest is implicated, i.e., the claim is premised on a meritless 6 legal theory, or clearly lacking any factual basis. 7 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 8 accords judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of the 9 complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims premised See Neitzke Section 1915(e)(2)(B) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 on factual contentions that are clearly baseless. 11 Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 12 complaint's factual allegations means that a court is not bound, 13 as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the 14 pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's 15 allegations. 16 pauperis plaintiff's factual allegations must be weighted in favor 17 of the plaintiff. 18 serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed 19 facts, and the complaint may not be dismissed simply because the 20 court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely or improbable. 21 See id. 22 "the facts alleged are 'clearly baseless' . . . a category 23 encompassing allegations that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' and 24 'delusional,'" 25 the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are 26 judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." 27 28 See Denton v. To pierce the veil of the But, this initial assessment of the in forma See id. A frivolousness determination cannot A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when id. (citations omitted), or "rise to the level of Id. Because a dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court's 2 1 discretion under the in forma pauperis statute, the dismissal does 2 not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same 3 allegations. 4 See id. The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. 5 Plaintiff names "Social Security Income/Supplimental [sic] 6 Security Income" as Defendant in this case. 7 both that he was "given $900+ at first . . . reduced to around 8 $800.00 plus when I complained" and also that his claim for SSI 9 was denied and he was not given the opportunity to appeal the Plaintiff complains United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 denial. 11 applied for SSI in 2005, and an increase in his SSI payments to 12 $9,000 monthly. 13 without merit, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to proceed in 14 forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks $1.5 million, back pay to the date he Because Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 Dated: 12/28/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?