Amir S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Amir S.'s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint in a Social Security disability action. The court granted the IFP application and determined the complaint survived pre-answer screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis“The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application. Dkt. No. 2.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for IFP status, requiring the plaintiff to show an inability to pay fees while maintaining necessities of life. The record recited in the order (unemployment, lack of savings/income, and reliance on family for living expenses) supports the finding that the plaintiff meets this standard, despite the ownership of a vehicle. |
Screening the Complaint and finding it states a claim“Plaintiff's complaint satisfies the pleading requirements. Dkt. No. 1. ... Finally, there is no indication Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the applicable screening statute for non-prisoner IFP litigants and the specific pleading requirements for Social Security actions under the Supplemental Rules. The order recites that the complaint contains all required elements (statutory basis, final decision, residence, wage record, and benefit type) and alleges a lack of substantial evidence, which is sufficient to state a claim in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standards for both the IFP application and the subsequent screening of the complaint. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for the IFP standard and the scope of § 1915 screening. The application of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions is consistent with local practice and the cited district court authority. The reasoning is complete and directly addresses the requirements of the motions before the court.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMIR S., Case No.: 25-cv-2483-DEB 12 Plaintiff,1 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SCREENING ORDER SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 [DKT. NO. 2] 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Amir S.’s Application to Proceed in District Court 20 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 2. 21 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 23 United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Courts may waive prepayment of 24 fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his assets, showing he 25 is unable to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as to 26 [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. 27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last 28 1 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). An affidavit 2 is sufficient if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself 3 and dependents with the necessities of life.” Wells v. Acosta, 609 F. App’x 430, 430 (9th 4 Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 5 Plaintiff’s application establishes he is unemployed and owns one vehicle worth 6 $16,971.00. Dkt. No. 2 at 2–3. He was last employed by United Health Group in March of 7 2021 and received $40,000.00 in gross annual pay.2 Id. at 2; Dkt. No. 9 at 1. Plaintiff has 8 neither savings nor income and has $1,251.00 in monthly expenses. Dkt. No. 2 at 4–5; Dkt. 9 No. 9 at 2. His “family helps when possible” and pays “all of [his] current living expenses.” 10 Dkt. No. 2 at 5; Dkt. No. 9 at 2. Plaintiff does not expect any major financial changes to 11 occur in the next twelve months. Dkt. No. 9 at 2. 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown he cannot 13 pay the filing fee and afford the necessities of life. The Court, therefore, GRANTS 14 Plaintiff’s IFP Application. Dkt. No. 2. 15 II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 16 Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his complaint requires pre-answer screening 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2002) 18 (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915€(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”). 19 The Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 20 require the complaint to include the following: 21 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner 22 with the final decision; (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person 23 for whom benefits are claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 24 25 26 27 2 Plaintiff’s IFP Application states he earned $40,000.00 in gross monthly pay from United Health Group. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. At the Court’s invitation (Dkt. No. 8), Plaintiff later clarified 28 1 || Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)-(E); see also Vaughn J. v. O’Malley, 24-cv- 2 || 1124-VET, 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024) (“[I]n the context of a Social 3 Security action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental 4 ||Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . . . to determine whether the 5 Complaint states a claim for relief.” (citations omitted)). 6 Plaintiff's complaint satisfies the pleading requirements. Dkt. No. 1. It states the 7 || action 1s brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), identifies the final decision to be reviewed as 8 ||the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision, provides Plaintiff's name and states he resides 9 San Diego County, establishes Plaintiff is claiming benefits on his own wage record, 10 || and confirms he is claiming disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff further 11 || alleges the Commissioner’s “denial of his disability claim is not supported by substantial 12 ||evidence . . . including the weight of the evidence, his credibility, [and] the medical 13 evidence of record[.]” /d. at 2. Finally, there is no indication Plaintiff's Complaint is 14 || frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 15 |}monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 16 1915(e)(2)(B)G)—Gii). 17 Ht. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown he lacks the 19 || financial resources to pay his filing fee. The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP 20 || Application. Dkt. No. 2. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: December 19, 2025 — Dando oa Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28