Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ELIZABETH W.,1 Case No.: 26-cv-3447-MMP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER: 11 v. 1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of AMENDED MOTION FOR Social Security, 13 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN Defendant. FORMA PAUPERIS; AND 14 15 2) SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 16 AND § 1915(a) 17 [ECF No. 10] 18 19 20 On June 8, 2026, Elizabeth W. (“Plaintiff”) filed this Social Security appeal pursuant 21 to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c) of the Social Security Act, seeking judicial review of 22 the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”) 23 denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security income benefits. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 6, 24 10. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 18, 2026. ECF No. 10. 25 26 27 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), the Court refers to all non-government 28 1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma 2 Pauperis (“IFP”). Id. 3 I. AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 4 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 5 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 6 $405.2 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). “An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees 7 only if the party is granted IFP status” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Rodriguez v. Cook, 8 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 9 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s 10 Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 11 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound 12 discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of 13 indigency.”). A party, however, need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. 14 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements 15 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot 16 because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide himself 17 and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339 (citation modified). At the same 18 time, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 19 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances 20 of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 21 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). The facts as to the affiant’s poverty 22 must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. 23 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). 24 25 26 2 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $55.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55.00 28 1 Plaintiff has satisfied her burden of demonstrating she is entitled to IFP status. 2 Plaintiff’s amended motion to proceed IFP contains a sworn statement of her income and 3 assets. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff’s average monthly income is $340 consisting of $240 in public 4 assistance and $100 from her grandmother, with whom she lives. Id. ¶¶ 8, 12. Plaintiff 5 attests she has no disability or other benefits except as previously noted, and there is $3 in 6 her checking account. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4. She has no dependents and no assets. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 7. 7 Plaintiff’s sworn statement reflects her monthly income is equal to her expenditures. 8 The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the initial filing 9 fee without impairing her ability to provide herself with life’s necessities. Thus, the Court 10 GRANTS Plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to proceed IFP. 11 II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915(a) 12 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are 13 subject to a mandatory sua sponte screening by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 14 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Norris v. Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-432-BLM, 2023 WL 2518870, at *2 15 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2023) (citations omitted). A complaint should be dismissed sua sponte 16 if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 17 granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 18 relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126. Complaints in social security 19 cases are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 20 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Giselle N. v. Kijakazi, 694 F. Supp. 3d 1193, 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2023). 21 Effective December 1, 2022, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to 22 include the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 23 (“Supplemental Rules”). The Supplemental Rules govern social security actions and 24 “establish a simplified procedure that recognizes the essentially appellate character of 25 actions that seek only review of an individual’s claims on a single administrative record. . 26 . ” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R., 2022 Advisory Committee Note. 27 / / 28 / / 1 Supplement Rule 2(b)(1) provides the complaint must: 2 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); 3 (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 4 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 5 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits 6 are claimed; 7 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 8 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 9 ||Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1). “The elements of the claim for review are 10 ||}adequately pleaded under Rule 2(b)(1)(B), (C), (D), and (E).” /d., 2022 Advisory 11 ||Committee Note. 12 After reviewing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to its sua sponte screening, 13 Court finds Plaintiff has adequately pleaded the four elements. The Amended 14 ||Complaint reflects Plaintiff's claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c); 15 |/identifies the decision as a denial from the ALJ on August 6, 2025, which the Appeals 16 Council denied further review; identifies Plaintiff by name and BNC number used in this 17 states Plaintiff lives in Lakeside, California, which is in San Diego County; and 18 |/identifies the type of benefits claimed as supplemental security income benefits. ECF No. 19 || 10 1, 2, 6, 8, 10. Plaintiff adequately pleads the elements required by Supplemental Rule 20 2(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sufficient to survive 21 § 1915(a) screening. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: July 6, 2026 Wyble th. ea 74 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28