Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD GLENN CRATHIN, an Case No.: 26-cv-540-GPC-VET individual, 12 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 14 [ECF No. 3] FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of 15 Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17 18 On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff Reginald Glenn Crathin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with 19 counsel, filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner 20 of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. ECF No. 1. Along 21 with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 22 which is currently before the Court. ECF No. 3. 23 I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a 26 plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant 27 1 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 3 A party need not be completely destitute to satisfy the IFP indigency threshold. See 4 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). Rather, the 5 determination of indigency falls within the district court's sound discretion. See Cal. Men's 6 Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[s]ection 1915 7 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 8 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency”), rev'd on other 9 grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). To qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit 10 showing that the applicant cannot pay the fee and “still be able to provide himself and 11 dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. The affidavit must “state the facts as to 12 [the] affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. 13 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 14 Here, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit reporting that he receives $598.00 per month 15 in public assistance and $298.00 per month in food stamps. ECF No. 3, at 1. He is 16 unemployed and has no cash savings. Id. at 1-2. Thus, the filing fee would constitute more 17 than half of Plaintiff’s monthly cash inflow. Plaintiff owns and lives in a non-operational 18 motor home that he estimates is worth $10,000. Id. at 2. Because Plaintiff has demonstrated 19 he is unable to afford the filing fee, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 20 proceed IFP. 21 II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING 22 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 23 by the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Social Security appeals are not exempt 24 from this screening requirement.” Vaughn J. v. O'Malley, No. 3:24-CV-01124-VET, 2024 25 WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024). Courts must sua sponte dismiss IFP 26 complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or 27 1 which seek damages from defendants who are immune. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 2 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a 3 district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint that fails to state a claim.”); Chavez v. Robinson, 4 817 F.3d 1162, 1167–68 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates 5 dismissal”). 6 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security 7 Actions Under 42 U.S.C § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) govern the standard for 8 screening complaints in the Social Security appeals context. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Supp. Soc. 9 Sec. R. advisory committee’s note; see also Vaughn J., 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (“[I]n the 10 context of a Social Security action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's 11 Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . . . to determine 12 whether the Complaint states a claim for relief.”) (citations omitted). 13 Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the currently applicable minimum pleading 14 requirements for Social Security complaints under these Supplemental Rules. See Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. advisory committee's note (“Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 16 are the core of the provisions that are inconsistent with, and supersede, the corresponding 17 rules on pleading, service, and presenting the action for decision.”). The Rule requires that 18 the complaint: 19 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); 20 (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation 21 provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 22 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are 23 claimed; 24 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 25 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 26 27 ] || Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). Additionally, Rule 2(b)(2) provides that 2 ||the complaint “may include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Jd. at 3 2(b)(2) (emphasis added). 4 Here, Plaintiffs complaint (1) states the action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 5 || ECF No. 1, at 1; (2) identifies the decision to be reviewed as the Administrative Law 6 || Judge’s February 24, 2025, decision, id 4] 7-8; (3) provides Plaintiff's name and last four 7 ||digits of his social security number, and states that Plaintiff resides within San Diego 8 ||County, id. § 1; (4) specifies that the appeal refers to Plaintiffs’ own denied claim for 9 || disability benefits, id. at 3; and (5) identifies supplemental security income on the basis of 10 disability as the type of benefits claimed, id. 4 6. Though not necessary to proceed, the 11 |}complaint further explains Plaintiff's grounds for relief from the Commissioner’s decision, 12 ||including that the ALJ “failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff's testimony regarding the 13 ||severity and limiting effects of his physical and mental symptoms” and “improperly 14 || rejected the medical opinion evidence.” ECF No. 1, ¥ 9. Thus, upon due consideration, the 15 || Court finds that Plaintiffs complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 16 || See, e.g., Patricia Hermila C. v. Bisignano, No. 25CV1980-JES-VET, 2025 WL 2941114, 17 *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2025) (finding plaintiff's complaint containing similar allegations 18 || survived § 1915(e) screening). 19 Ht. CONCLUSION 20 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed 21 ||in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: March 2, 2026 <= 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28 26-cv-540-GPC-VET