Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 Kanya Roblyer, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02832-H-MSB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 15 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 2] 17 Defendant. 18 19 On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff Kanya Roblyer (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, 20 filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of 21 Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Along 22 with her complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 23 which is currently before the Court. (Doc. No. 2.) 24 I. Request to Proceed IFP 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite 27 a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 1 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A party need not be 2 completely destitute to satisfy the IFP indigency threshold. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de 3 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). Rather, the determination of indigency 4 falls within the district court's sound discretion. See Cal. Men's Colony v. Rowland, 939 5 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[s]ection 1915 typically requires the reviewing 6 court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 7 statute's requirement of indigency”), rev'd on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). To 8 qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit showing that the applicant cannot 9 pay the fee and “still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of 10 life.” Id. at 339. The affidavit must “state the facts as to [the] affiant's poverty with some 11 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 12 (9th Cir. 1981). 13 Here, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit reporting that she receives $475.00 per month 14 from her parents. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) She is unemployed and has no cash savings. (Id. at 15 2-3.) Plaintiff receives Medi-Cal and WIC Benefits. (Id. at 5.) Because Plaintiff has 16 demonstrated she is unable to afford the filing fee, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for 17 leave to proceed IFP. 18 II. Sua Sponte Screening 19 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 20 by the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Social Security appeals are not exempt 21 from this screening requirement.” Vaughn J. v. O'Malley, 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. 22 Cal. Aug. 8, 2024). Courts must sua sponte dismiss IFP complaints, or any portions 23 thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from 24 defendants who are immune. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 25 banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] 26 complaint that fails to state a claim.”); Chavez v. Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1167–68 (9th 27 Cir. 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal”). 28 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security 2 Actions Under 42 U.S.C § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) govern the standard for 3 screening complaints in the Social Security appeals context. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Supp. Soc. 4 Sec. R. advisory committee’s note; see also Vaughn J., 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (“[I]n the 5 context of a Social Security action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's 6 Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . . . to determine 7 whether the Complaint states a claim for relief.”) (citations omitted). 8 Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the currently applicable minimum pleading 9 requirements for Social Security complaints under these Supplemental Rules. See Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. advisory committee's note (“Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 11 are the core of the provisions that are inconsistent with, and supersede, the corresponding 12 rules on pleading, service, and presenting the action for decision.”). The Rule requires that 13 the complaint: 14 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); 15 (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation 16 provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 17 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are 18 claimed; 19 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 20 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Additionally, Rule 2(b)(2) provides that 22 the complaint “may include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Id. at 23 2(b)(2) (emphasis added). 24 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint (1) states the action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 25 (Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 1); (2) identifies the decision to be reviewed as the Administrative 26 Law Judge’s June 9, 2025 decision, (id. ¶¶ 2-3); (3) provides Plaintiff's name and last four 27 digits of her social security number, and states that Plaintiff resides within San Diego 28 County, (id. ¶¶ 1, 4-5); (4) specifies that the appeal refers to Plaintiff’s own denied claim 1 || for disability benefits, (id. 4] 1); and (5) identifies supplemental security income on the basis 2 || of disability as the type of benefits claimed, (id.). Thus, upon due consideration, the Court 3 || finds that Plaintiff's complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See, 4 |le.g., Patricia Hermila C. v. Bisignano, 2025 WL 2941114, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2025) 5 || (finding plaintiff's complaint containing similar allegations survived § 1915(e) screening). 6 III. Conclusion 7 Based on the above, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 8 pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATED: June 3, 2026 | i MARILYN WB. HUFF, Distri ge 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28