Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE LEE K., Case No.: 3:26-cv-02355-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff Jacqueline Lee K. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action 23 against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the 24 Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying her application for Supplemental 25 Security Income for lack of disability. ECF No. 1; see generally Jacqueline Lee K. v. 26 Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-405-AHG, ECF No. 17 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022). Along with her 27 Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 28 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court’s consideration. First, the 3 Court must determine whether an applicant properly shows an inability to pay the 4 $4051 civil filing fee required by this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). To that 5 end, an applicant must also provide the Court with a signed affidavit “that includes a 6 statement of all assets[,] which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” CivLR 7 3.2(a). Second, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to evaluate whether an applicant’s 8 complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lopez v. Smith, 9 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court 10 to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 13 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 14 prove her indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 15 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 16 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 17 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 18 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (an adequate affidavit should state supporting facts “with some 19 particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 20 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 21 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case- 22 by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty 23 24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); UNITED STATES COURTS, DISTRICT COURT 26 MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 2 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 3 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 4 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). 5 Here, Plaintiff states in her affidavit that she receives $1,146 per month in Section 8 6 housing benefits (which is applied directly to her rent, as opposed to provided to her in 7 cash), $298 per month in food stamps, and approximately $1,429 to $1,649 in contributions 8 each month from her son and father to assist her with the remainder of the rent. ECF No. 2 9 at 1–3. She has no valuable assets other than a 2013 Mazda, and has no other source of 10 income. Id. Even with the assistance she receives, her monthly expenses ($3,065) exceed 11 her monthly income (between $2,873 to $3,073). Id. at 1–4; see id. at 4 (rent is $2,230 and 12 utilities are $175). Considering the information in the affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff 13 has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the $405 filing fee under § 1915(a). 14 B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 15 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 17 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss 18 complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening 21 requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 22 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 23 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits 24 [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 25 (affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); 26 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. 27 Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules of Social 28 Security Actions sets forth the requirements for a complaint in an action appealing the 1 decision of the Commissioner. FED. R. CIV. P., SUPPLEMENTAL R. 2 OF SOC. SEC. ACTIONS 2 UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(G) (effective Dec. 1, 2022) (The complaint must “(A) state that the 3 action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including 4 any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; (C) state 5 the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; (D) 6 name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of 7 benefits claimed.” The complaint may “include a short and plain statement of the grounds 8 for relief.”). In the IFP screening context, however, “[t]he plaintiff must provide a 9 statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s determination 10 and must make a showing that he is entitled to relief, ‘in sufficient detail such that the Court 11 can understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can meaningfully screen 12 the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).’” Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 19cv2431-JLB, 2020 WL 13 1169671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (quoting Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB- 14 NJK, 2015 WL 357121, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015)). “Every plaintiff appealing an 15 adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong. The 16 purpose of the complaint is to briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal 17 conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, 18 at *2. 19 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently 20 stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, in her complaint, Plaintiff 21 (1) states that she brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); (2) identifies the final 22 decision of the Commissioner to be reviewed as the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) 23 unfavorable decision issued on December 15, 2025, which became the final decision of the 24 Commissioner when the Appeals Council declined to assume jurisdiction on 25 March 10, 2026; (3) provides her name and states that she resides in La Mesa, California, 26 located within San Diego County; and (4) states the type of benefits claimed, namely, 27 Supplemental Security Income benefits. ECF No. 1. Although it is optional to do so under 28 Rule 2, Plaintiff further explains her grounds for relief from the Commissioner’s decision, 1 including that: “(a) There is no substantial medical or vocational evidence in the record to 2 support the legal conclusion of plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act; (b) 3 There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s finding that 4 plaintiff could perform any substantial gainful activity; (c) The evidence in the record 5 supports only the finding that plaintiff is disabled and has been continuously disabled as 6 that term is defined in the Social Security Act at all times relevant to plaintiff’s application; 7 (d) New and material evidence for which good cause exists for failure to submit earlier 8 exists and warrants a remand of this matter for further proceedings.” Id. at 2–3. Upon due 9 consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(e)(2)(B). 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 13 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, without prepayment of fees or costs. ECF No. 2. 14 Typically, after granting IFP status, the Court would direct the Clerk’s Office to 15 prepare and issue summons for the named Defendant, and direct the Plaintiff to complete 16 Form 285. Then, the United States Marshal Service would serve a copy of the complaint 17 and summons on Defendant. However, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules of Social Security Actions, and this district’s 19 General Order 747, a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security 20 Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern 21 District of California office in lieu of service of a summons. See FED. R. CIV. P., 22 SUPPLEMENTAL R. 3 OF SOC. SEC. ACTIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(G) (effective Dec. 1, 23 2022) (“The court must notify the Commissioner of the commencement of the action by 24 transmitting a Notice of Electronic Filing to the appropriate office within the Social 25 Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney for 26 the district where the action is filed. … The plaintiff need not serve a summons and 27 complaint under Civil Rule 4.”); General Order No. 747 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2022) 28 (explaining that, in social security cases, the administrative record is due in lieu of an 1 |;answer “60[] days after service of the Notice of Electronic Filing of the complaint,” 2 ||emphasizing that the service of summons is no longer a requirement). Here, no further 3 || action is needed, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the notice of electronic filing to 4 || Defendant in the instant case. See ECF No. 4, NEF (“The Notice of Electronic Filing of 5 complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for service of the complaint. 6 || The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil Rule 4.”); ECF No. 9, 7 || NEF (same). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 1, 2026 MioeH. Aydolan-_ 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28