Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN M., Case No.: 26-cv-0411-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, PAUPERIS AND SCREENING Commissioner of Social Security, 15 ORDER Defendant. 16 [DKT. NOS. 1, 3] 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Christian M.’s Application to Proceed with 18 his Complaint in forma pauperis (“IFP application”).1 Dkt. No. 3. 19 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 20 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment 21 of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all assets, 22 showing plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The 23 affidavit must “state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some 24 25 26 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. CivLR 1 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 2 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotations omitted). An affidavit is sufficient 3 if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself 4 [or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. California 5 Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) 6 (internal quotations omitted). 7 Plaintiff is challenging the denial of his Social Security Disability 8 Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits application. 9 Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 6 (Compl.). Plaintiff has been unemployed for almost four years. 10 Dkt. No. 3 at 2. Plaintiff’s only income is $670 per month in “General Relief 11 and Food Stamps[.]” Id. His reported checking account balance is $200 dollars. 12 Id. Plaintiff’s monthly expenses include $65 for rent, $185 for utilities, $300 13 for food, $72 for transportation, and $33 for rental of a post office box. Id. at 4– 14 5. In total, Plaintiff’s gross monthly expenses exceed his monthly income by 15 $185. 16 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown 17 he lacks the financial resources to pay his filing fee. The Court, therefore, 18 GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application. 19 II. Screening the Complaint 20 The Court next turns to screening Plaintiff’s complaint. See Michael 21 Edward M. v. Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-1138-RBM-AHG, 2023 WL 5955302, at *2 22 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023) (“Social Security appeals are not exempt from this [28 23 U.S.C. § 1915] screening requirement.”) (citations omitted). 24 Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for 25 Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) 26 require a complaint to: 1 (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with the 2 final decision; 3 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 4 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; 5 and (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 6 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Rule 2(b)(2) further states a 8 complaint “may include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” 9 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies Rule 2(b)’s pleading requirements. Dkt. 10 No. 1. It states this case is on appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); identifies the 11 Commissioner’s final decision as the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) 12 unfavorable decision; provides Plaintiff’s name, states he resides in San Diego 13 County; and states he is claiming Supplemental Security Income and 14 Disability Insurance Benefits. Id. ¶ 1–3. Plaintiff further alleges “the ALJ did 15 not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [Plaintiff’s] symptom and 16 limitation testimony . . . [and] did not properly weigh the medical evidence that 17 [Plaintiff] had more limitations as expressed by [physicians] . . . the ALJ 18 finding of the ability to perform work is not supported by substantial 19 evidence[.]” Id. ¶ 8(a)–(c). Finally, there is no indication Plaintiff’s Complaint 20 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 21 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 \\ 1 III. Conclusion 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application to 3 || Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 3. 4 In accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules, and this District’s 5 ||General Order 747, a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the 6 Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United 7 ||States Attorney’s Southern District of California office in lieu of service of a 8 ||summons. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 17, 2026 — Honorable Daniel E. Butcher 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27