(SS) Stanfield v. Commissioner of Social Security
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SCOTT STANFIELD, No. 2:25–cv–01410–SCR Plaintiff, ORDER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
15 Defendant. 16 17 This is an action involving the review of a Social Security disability proceeding and is referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15). Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees). ECF No. 2. The motion does not show that Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). “[O]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP statute. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). The current…