Striplin v. Social Security/Supplemental Security Income

Filing 6

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)

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 Striplin has applied to proceed

12

in forma 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