Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSICA M., Case No.: 26-cv-3744-DEB 12 Plaintiff,1 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SCREENING ORDER SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 [DKT. NO. 2] 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jessica M.’s Application to Proceed in District Court 20 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 2. 21 I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 23 United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Courts may waive prepayment of 24 fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his assets, showing she 25 is unable to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as to 26 [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. 27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last 28 1 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). An affidavit 2 is sufficient if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide [her]self 3 and dependents with the necessities of life.” Wells v. Acosta, 609 F. App’x 430, 430 (9th 4 Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 5 Plaintiff’s application establishes she is unemployed and has one vehicle worth 6 $5,273.00, with a monthly loan payment of $217.45. Dkt. No. 2. She has no savings and 7 receives VA disability benefits of $4,408.53 per month. Id. Her monthly debt payments 8 total $1,420.45, in addition to monthly living expenses, including rent ($1,552.49), utilities 9 ($320), food ($600), and insurance ($144.62) that total $2,617.11. Id. Her total monthly 10 expenses are $4,945.68. Id. Plaintiff does not expect any major financial changes to occur 11 in the next twelve months. Id. 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown she cannot 13 pay the filing fee and afford the necessities of life. The Court, therefore, GRANTS 14 Plaintiff’s IFP Application. Dkt. No. 2. 15 II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 16 Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, her complaint requires pre-answer screening 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2002) 18 (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”). 19 The Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 20 require the complaint to include the following: 21 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner 22 with the final decision; (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person 23 for whom benefits are claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 24 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)–(E); see also Vaughn J. v. O’Malley, 24-cv- 26 1124-VET, 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024) (“[I]n the context of a Social 27 Security action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental 28 1 Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . . . to determine whether the 2 ||Complaint states a claim for relief.” (citations omitted)). 3 Plaintiff's complaint satisfies the pleading requirements. Dkt. No. 1. It states the 4 || action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), identifies the final decision to be reviewed as 5 Commissioner’s unfavorable decision, provides Plaintiff's name and states she resides 6 |}in San Diego County, establishes Plaintiff is claiming benefits on her own wage record, 7 confirms she is claiming disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff 8 further alleges the Commissioner’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence 9 || because the final decision “does not accurately reflect the severity, persistence, and limiting 10 || effects of Plaintiff's mental and physical impairments,” in addition to other allegations of 11 || factual and legal errors. /d. Finally, there is no indication Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous, 12 || malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 13 against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)G)- 14 || (iii). 15 It. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown she lacks the 17 financial resources to pay her filing fee. The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP 18 || Application. Dkt. No. 2. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: July 17, 2026 ™ DwidP Te Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28