Christopher Brian Wimer v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Christopher Brian Wimer's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security action. The court granted the IFP application and determined that the complaint survived the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 3] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute, only unable to pay court costs while affording necessities of life. The plaintiff's affidavit alleged no income, no assets, and reliance on EBT benefits, which satisfies the requirement to allege poverty with particularity. The decision follows from the law and the recited record. |
Complaint Survives Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed.” | agree with court The court stated it reviewed the complaint and found it satisfied pleading requirements, stated a plausible claim, and was not frivolous. While the order does not detail the specific legal arguments of the complaint, the conclusion that a Social Security complaint seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision is not facially frivolous or malicious is a standard and defensible outcome for such filings. The court correctly identified the applicable screening statute and supplemental rules. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutes and case law for both the IFP grant and the screening requirement. It accurately recites the plaintiff's financial status as described in the affidavit. The reasoning for the screening is brief but sufficient for a standard Social Security complaint that is not facially deficient.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER BRIAN WIMER, Case No.: 26-cv-01959-BAS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURTY, 15 [Dkt. No. 3] Defendant. 16 17 On March 27, 2026, Plaintiff Christopher Brian Wimer (“Plaintiff”) initiated this 18 action against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a final 19 adverse decision of the Commissioner. Dkt. No. 1. On March 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed an 20 application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is presently before 21 the Court. Dkt. No. 3. 22 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, 23 civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by any person who 24 demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A party 25 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is 27 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 28 1 necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 2 || Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 3 || particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 4 || 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981)). 5 Plaintiff avers he has no income and has not been employed since 2018. Dkt. No. 3 6 1-2. Plaintiff receives $290 a month in EBT benefits, and eight months ago, he received 7 total of $1,200 in cash aid which must be paid back. /d. at 2-3. Plaintiff has no other 8 ||income or assets. Jd. at 1-4. Plaintiff states that he has no house, automobile, or bank 9 |}account. Jd. at 2. Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 10 ||adequately demonstrated that he lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee. 11 ||Accordingly, Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 3] is 12 || GRANTED. 13 Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must 14 || also screen the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must dismiss an IFP 15 ||complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous or 16 || malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See id. Rule 2(b) of 17 ||the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 18 ||requirements for a Social Security complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 19 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs complaint and finds it satisfies 20 || these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is neither frivolous nor 21 ||malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: April 27, 2026 _— 24 Tbr! lib we 25 Hon. David D. Leshner 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28