Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO A., Case No.: 3:26-cv-04346-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On July 29, 2026, Plaintiff Pedro A. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the 19 Commissioner of Social Security, Frank Bisignano, seeking judicial review of the 20 Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying his applications for 21 Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. ECF 22 No. 1. Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in 23 forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court’s consideration. First, the 26 Court must determine whether an applicant properly shows an inability to pay the $405 27 civil filing fee required by this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). To that end, an 28 applicant must also provide the Court with a signed affidavit “that includes a statement of 1 all assets[,] which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” CivLR 3.2(a). 2 Second, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to evaluate whether an applicant’s complaint 3 sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 4 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 5 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 8 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 9 prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 10 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 11 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 12 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 13 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 14 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case- 15 by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of 16 “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 17 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based 18 upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 19 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). 20 Here, Plaintiff states in his affidavit that he is unemployed and last worked in 2021. 21 ECF No. 2 at 1. He further states that his only income consists of approximately 22 $298 per month in EBT benefits, that he has no cash or money in checking or savings 23 accounts, and that he owns only modest personal property, including clothing and 24 household items. Id. at 1–2. Considering the information in the affidavit, the Court finds 25 Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the $405 filing fee under § 1915(a). 26 B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 27 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 1 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss 2 complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 3 granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening 5 requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 6 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 7 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner's denial of social security disability benefits 8 [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 9 (affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); 10 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. 11 In the past, this Court and others have applied the familiar Rule 8 pleading standard 12 to conduct the mandatory screening of complaints under the IFP statute in Social Security 13 appeals brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See, e.g., Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, 14 at *2-3; (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) to determine the sufficiency of a complaint in a 15 Social Security appeal); Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-02431-JLB, 2020 WL 1169671, at 16 *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (same); Detra H. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:22-CV-01162-AHG, 2022 17 WL 4230547, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2022) (same). However, since the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. 19 § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) became effective on December 1, 2022, the standard for 20 screening complaints in the Social Security appeals context has changed. Now, to the extent 21 that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are inconsistent with the Supplemental Rules, the 22 Court must apply the Supplemental Rules rather than the Civil Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 23 SS Rule 2 Committee Note. “Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the core of the 24 provisions that are inconsistent with, and supersede, the corresponding rules on pleading, 25 service, and presenting the action for decision.” Id. 26 Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth the 27 requirements for a complaint in an action appealing the decision of the Commissioner. 28 Accordingly, the Court must apply Rule 2 to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 sufficiently states a claim for relief. Under that Rule, the complaint must: 2 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 3 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 4 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 5 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 6 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). Additionally, Rule 2(b)(2) provides that the 8 complaint may “include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” 9 In his Complaint, Plaintiff (1) states that he brings this action pursuant to § 405(g); 10 (2) identifies the final decision of the Commissioner to be reviewed as the Administrative 11 Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision dated March 19, 2026, which became final on June 2, 2026 12 after the Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s decision; (3) provides his name and county 13 of residence; (4) seeks benefits on his own wage record; and (5) states the type of benefits 14 claimed, namely, Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental 15 Security Income. ECF No. 1 at 1–2. Plaintiff further includes a description of his grounds 16 for relief in the Complaint, including that the decision is contrary to the law and to the 17 evidence. ECF No. 1 at 2. 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies all pleading requirements of Rule 2(b) of the 19 Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions, and there is no indication that the 20 Complaint is frivolous or malicious or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 21 immune from such relief. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint survives 22 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 25 Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2). 26 In accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental 27 Rules for Social Security Actions, and this District’s General Order 747, a notice of 28 electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security Administration’s Office of 1 || General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern District of California office 2 ||in lieu of service of a summons. No further action by Plaintiff is needed to effect service 3 the Complaint, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the notice of electronic filing 4 || of the Complaint to Defendant in the instant case. See ECF No. 4, NEF (“The Notice of 5 Electronic Filing of the complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for 6 || service of the complaint. The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil 7 ||Rule 4.”). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 10, 2026 Men H. Xylolead 1] Honorable Allison H. Goddard 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28