Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARLENE M.,1 Case No.: 3:26-cv-04843-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING 14 FRANK J. BISIGNANO, Commissioner FEES OR COSTS of Social Security, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 3] 16 17 18 19 20 On August 25, 2026, Plaintiff Arlene M. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, seeking 21 judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s 22 (“Commissioner”) final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits. ECF No. 1. 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 24 Fees or Costs (“Application”). ECF No. 3. For the reasons stated below, the Court 25 GRANTS the Application. 26 27 1 Partially redacted in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b). 28 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Except for writ of habeas corpus applications, all parties instituting a civil action, 3 suit, or proceeding in a United States district court must pay a filing fee of $405.2 See 28 4 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without paying the filing fee only if the party is 5 granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez 6 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 7 To proceed IFP, an applicant does not need to be “absolutely destitute” but must 8 adequately prove their indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 9 339–40 (1948). To that end, an applicant must provide the Court with a signed affidavit 10 “that includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give 11 security.” CivLR 3.2.a. The affidavit proving indigence should allege “that the affiant 12 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 13 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also Jefferson v. 14 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (an adequate affidavit should state 15 supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is 16 “set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 17 earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP 18 requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general 19 benchmark of “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony 20 v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate 21 indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on 22 23 24 25 2 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also U. S. COURTS, DISTRICT COURT 26 MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), available at 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 28 1 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 2 1974). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. IFP Application 5 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to IFP status. Plaintiff’s is self- 6 employed as a caregiver for her father and earns $700 per month through a California state 7 program. ECF No. 3 at 1. Plaintiff also receives $298 per month in food stamps, for a total 8 of $998 in monthly income. Id. at 2. Plaintiff lists no employment history and has no money 9 on-hand or in the bank. Id. Plaintiff owns a 2022 Honda CRV with an estimated value of 10 $6,200. Id. at 3. She has no other assets. Id. 11 In terms of expenses, Plaintiff pays $750 per month in rent, $100 for phone bills, 12 $250 for food, $40 for dry-cleaning, $80 for gas, $63 for car insurance, and $10 for “daily 13 necessities/hygiene products.” Id. at 4–5. Thus, her monthly expenses total $1,293. Id. at 14 5. She expects no changes to her monthly income, expenses, assets, or liabilities during the 15 next 12 months. Id. Her attorney took this case on a contingency basis. Id. Plaintiff further 16 explains that she is a month behind on rent and often uses food banks when her food stamps 17 run out at the end of the month. Id. She receives no help from friends or family. Id. 18 Based on the information in the affidavit, Plaintiff has no available financial 19 resources to pay the filing fee, has no net monthly income, and is apparently in debt. See 20 ECF No. 3. Therefore, considering the information in the affidavit, the Court finds that 21 Plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the $405 filing fee under Section 1915(a). 22 B. Mandatory Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 23 Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening 24 by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 25 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all [IFP] complaints, not just those filed by 26 prisoners”); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”) (internal citation omitted). Social 28 Security appeals are not exempt from this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, 1 No. 12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90042, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) 2 (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of 3 the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits.”). Pursuant to Section 4 1915(e), a complaint should be dismissed sua sponte if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” 5 (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief 6 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 7 203 F.3d at 1126. 8 As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Complaint is not frivolous or malicious. 9 Nor does it seek relief against a defendant who is immune. Plaintiff identifies a decision 10 issued by the Commissioner that she seeks to appeal, a summary basis for the appeal, and 11 a valid statutory basis for the Complaint. ECF No. 1 at 1–3. Further, the Commissioner is 12 not immune from the relief requested, namely reversal of the Commissioner’s decision or 13 remand for further administrative proceedings. To the contrary, the Social Security Act 14 expressly authorizes federal judicial review of “any final decision of the Commissioner of 15 Social Security made after a hearing on which [the plaintiff] was a party.” 42 U.S.C. 16 § 405(g). 17 Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context- 18 specific task. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The pleading standard governing 19 most civil actions is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which provides that 20 a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 21 is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). However, in the context of a Social Security 22 action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for 23 Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) to determine 24 whether the Complaint states a claim for relief. See Supplemental Rule 1(a) (“These rules 25 govern an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review on the record of a final decision of 26 the Commissioner of Social Security that presents only an individual claim.”); see also 27 2022 Advisory Committee Note to Supplemental Rules (noting that Supplemental Rules 2, 28 3, 4, and 5 supersede the corresponding rules on pleading, service, and presenting the action 1 for decision); see also Randy M. v. O’Malley, No. 24-cv-03396-PHK, 2024 U.S. Dist. 2 LEXIS 111956, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2024) (“Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the 3 currently applicable minimum pleading requirements for Social Security complaints under 4 these Supplemental Rules.”); Landon H. v. O’Malley, No. 24-cv-0991-DEB, 2024 U.S. 5 Dist. LEXIS 108200, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2024) (applying Supplemental Rule 2 to 6 Social Security complaint). 7 Specifically, Supplemental Rule 2 states that a complaint appealing the decision of 8 the Commissioner must: 9 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 10 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 11 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 12 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 13 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 14 Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Further, a complaint “may include a short and plain 15 statement of the grounds for relief.” Supplemental Rule 2(b)(2). 16 Here, Plaintiff meets the five pleading requirements in Supplemental Rule 2. First, 17 Plaintiff states that the action is brought under § 405(g). ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1. Second, Plaintiff 18 identifies both the relevant Beneficiary Notice Control Number provided by the 19 Commissioner and the final decision of the Commissioner subject to review. Id. at ¶¶ 1–3. 20 Third, Plaintiff provides her name and states that she resides in San Diego, CA, a city 21 within San Diego County and within this Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 3. Fourth, Plaintiff 22 seeks review of a decision “denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability 23 Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits for lack of disability.” Id. 24 at 1 (¶ 1). Fifth, Plaintiff states the type of benefits claimed, namely, social security 25 disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Id. at ¶ 1. 26 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the minimum pleading 27 requirements to state a claim for relief under the applicable standards set forth in 28 Supplemental Rule 2. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Application. ECF 3 || No. 3. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 18, 2026 | Sh 6 Honorable Valerie E. Torres 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28