Cheryl G. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Cheryl G. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security action. The court granted the IFP application and determined that the complaint survived mandatory screening.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 3] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a plaintiff need not be completely destitute, only unable to pay court costs while affording the necessities of life. The plaintiff's affidavit detailed specific income ($1,038.00/month) and expenses ($1,038.00/month) with no assets, satisfying the requirement to allege poverty with particularity. |
Denying dismissal of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed.” | agree with court The court applied the statutory requirement to screen IFP complaints for failure to state a claim, frivolousness, or maliciousness. The court found the complaint satisfied these requirements and the specific pleading rules for Social Security actions. While the order does not detail the specific legal arguments in the complaint, the procedural determination that it is not facially frivolous or legally deficient is consistent with the cited standards. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP status and the mandatory screening requirement. It applies the correct legal standards from binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to the specific facts provided in the plaintiff's affidavit. The conclusion that the complaint survives screening is procedurally sound, although the order does not provide a detailed analysis of the complaint's legal sufficiency, which is common in such orders.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHERYL G., Case No.: 3:26-cv-5513-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 [Dkt. No. 3] Defendant. 16 17 18 On September 25, 2026, Plaintiff Cheryl G. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 19 against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a final 20 adverse decision of the Commissioner. Dkt. No. 1. On that same day, Plaintiff filed an 21 application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is presently before 22 the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 23 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, 24 civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by any person who 25 demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A party need 26 not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 27 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is 28 1 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 2 necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 3 Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 4 particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 5 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981)). 6 Plaintiff avers that she has been unemployed for the last two years. Dkt. No. 3 at 2. 7 Plaintiff reports no income other than “[s]tudent loans and help from family” and EBT 8 public-assistance, which total $1,038.00 per month. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that she has 9 no house, automobile or other assets. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further states that she has a bank 10 account, but that she has no balance in either her savings or checking accounts. Id. Plaintiff 11 states her monthly expenses, which include rent, utilities, food, laundry, and storage, total 12 $1,038.00; equal to her monthly income. Id. at 4-5. Based upon the record before it, the 13 Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources 14 to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis 15 [Dkt. No. 3] is GRANTED. 16 Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must 17 also screen the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must dismiss an IFP 18 complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous or 19 malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See id. Rule 2(b) of 20 the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 21 requirements for a Social Security complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 22 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds it satisfies 23 these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is neither frivolous nor 24 malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: September 28, 2026 _ 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28