Beas v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Gustavo B. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security action. The Court granted the IFP application and determined that the complaint survived statutory screening.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the application to proceed in forma pauperis“Accordingly, plaintiffs Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff is unemployed, incarcerated, and receives only $305.00 per month in public assistance with no other income or assets. Under the cited authorities, this demonstrates an inability to pay court costs while affording the necessities of life, satisfying the statutory requirement for IFP status. |
Finding the complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | agree with court The court applied the statutory screening standard for IFP cases, finding the complaint was not frivolous, malicious, or seeking relief from an immune defendant, and that it stated a plausible claim. The court noted the complaint met the specific pleading requirements of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory standard for IFP status and the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It cites the appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities for the IFP standard and explicitly references the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions for the pleading requirements. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO B., Case No.: 25-cv-657-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff Gustavo B. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 19 against the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a 20 final adverse decision of the Commissioner. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed 21 an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is presently 22 before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 23 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or 24 proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by 25 any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a)(1). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. 27 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n 28 affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant 1 ||cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 2 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). 3 || “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, 4 ||definiteness and certainty.” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 5 (9th Cir.1981)). 6 Here, Plaintiff avers he is unemployed and has been incarcerated. Dkt. No. 7 ||2 at 2, 4, 5. Plaintiff receives $305.00 per month in public assistance (food stamps) 8 ||but has no other income or assets. /d. at 1-4. Based upon the record before it, 9 |/the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that he lacks the 10 ||financial resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiffs Application to 11 Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is GRANTED. 12 The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which 13 ||relief can be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a 14 ||defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Rule 2(b) of the 15 ||Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 16 requirements for a Social Security plaintiff's complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 17 ||SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds that 18 || despite its brevity, it satisfies all pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for 19 relief, and is neither frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 20 ||Complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: April 21, 2025 apie Ciel haber 24 Hon. David D. Leshner 29 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28