Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK C., Case No.: 26-cv-5384-DEB 12 Plaintiff,1 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of SCREENING ORDER Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 [DKT. NO. 3] 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Patrick C.’s Application to Proceed in District Court 20 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3. 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 he 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 himself 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 he is unemployed and has no vehicle, no savings, 6 and receives no public assistance. Dkt. No. 3. His monthly expenses are $298.00, 7 associated with food stamps. Id. Plaintiff does not expect any major financial changes to 8 occur in the next twelve months. Id. 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown he cannot 10 pay the filing fee and afford the necessities of life. The Court, therefore, GRANTS 11 Plaintiff’s IFP Application. Dkt. No. 3. 12 II. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 13 Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his complaint requires pre-answer screening 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2002) 15 (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”). 16 The Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 17 require the complaint to include the following: 18 (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 19 with the final decision; (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person 20 for whom benefits are claimed; (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 21 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)–(E); see also Vaughn J. v. O’Malley, 24-cv- 23 1124-VET, 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024) (“[I]n the context of a Social 24 Security action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental 25 Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . . . to determine whether the 26 Complaint states a claim for relief.” (citations omitted)). 27 Plaintiff’s complaint satisfies the pleading requirements. Dkt. No. 1. It states the 28 action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), identifies the final decision to be reviewed as 1 ||the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision, provides Plaintiff's name and states he resides 2 |{in San Diego County, establishes Plaintiff is claiming disability insurance and 3 supplemental income benefits on his own behalf. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges 4 ||the Commissioner’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the final 5 || decision “failed to assume a complete and accurate medical-vocational profile” in addition 6 other allegations of factual and legal errors. /d. at 3-4. Finally, there is no indication 7 || Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be 8 || granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 9 1128 U.S.C. § □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 10 Ht. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown he lacks the 12 financial resources to pay his filing fee. The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP 13 || Application. Dkt. No. 3. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: September 28, 2026 — 6 Dando oa 7 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28