1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBRALEE M., Case No.: 3:25-cv-3658-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

13 v.

PAUPERIS

14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 3] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On December 18, 2025, Plaintiff Debralee M. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action 19 against the Commissioner of Social Security, Frank Bisignano, seeking judicial review of 20 the Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying her application for Social 21 Security disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income for lack of 22 disability. ECF No. 1. Along with her Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to 23 Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 3. 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 she must 9 adequately prove her indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 10 339–40 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court 11 costs 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 “twenty 16 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 17 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 18 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 19 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). 20 Here, Plaintiff states in her affidavit that she receives $734 per month in general 21 relief public assistance and $1,031 per month in child support. ECF No. 3 at 1-2. This 22 income is largely offset by monthly expenses totaling $1,981.95, including rent, utilities, 23 food, and miscellaneous costs. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff further avers that she has been 24 unemployed for the past two years, has $200 in a checking account, and no funds in a 25 savings account. Id. at 2. Based on the information in the affidavit, the Court finds that 26 Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated an inability to pay the $405 filing fee under § 27 1915(a). 28 // 1 B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 2 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 4 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss 5 complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 6 granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening 8 requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 9 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 10 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner's denial of social security disability benefits 11 [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 12 (affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); 13 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. 14 In the past, this Court and others have applied the familiar Rule 8 pleading standard 15 to conduct the mandatory screening of complaints under the IFP statute in Social Security 16 appeals brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See, e.g., Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, 17 at *2-3; (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) to determine the sufficiency of a complaint in a 18 Social Security appeal); Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-02431-JLB, 2020 WL 1169671, at 19 *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (same); Detra H. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:22-CV-01162-AHG, 2022 20 WL 4230547, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2022) (same). However, since the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. 22 § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) became effective on December 1, 2022, the standard for 23 screening complaints in the Social Security appeals context has changed. Now, to the extent 24 that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are inconsistent with the Supplemental Rules, the 25 Court must apply the Supplemental Rules rather than the Civil Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 26 SS Rule 2 Committee Note. “Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the core of the 27 provisions that are inconsistent with, and supersede, the corresponding rules on pleading, 28 service, and presenting the action for decision.” Id. 1 Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth the 2 requirements for a complaint in an action appealing the decision of the Commissioner. 3 Accordingly, the Court must apply Rule 2 to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint 4 sufficiently states a claim for relief. Under that Rule, the complaint must: 5 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 6 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 7 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 8 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 9 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). Additionally, Rule 2(b)(2) provides that the 11 complaint may “include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” 12 In her Complaint, Plaintiff (1) states that she brings this action pursuant to § 405(g); 13 (2) identifies the final decision of the Commissioner to be reviewed as the Administrative 14 Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision that became final on October 23, 2025, after the Appeals 15 Council declined to assume jurisdiction; (3) provides her name and county of residence on 16 the cover sheet; (4) provides that she is claiming benefits on her own wage record; and 17 (5) identifies the type of benefits at issue. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 3, 6, 9; ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff 18 further includes a description of her grounds for relief in the Complaint, including that the 19 record lacks substantial medical or vocational evidence to support the legal conclusion that 20 she is not disabled. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies all pleading requirements of Rule 2(b) of the 22 Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions, and there is no indication that the 23 Complaint is frivolous or malicious or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 24 immune from such relief. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint survives 25 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 rl. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to 3 || Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3). 4 In accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental 5 ||Rules for Social Security Actions, and this District’s General Order 747, a notice of 6 ||electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security Administration’s Office of 7 || General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern District of California office 8 lieu of service of a summons. No further action by Plaintiff is needed to effect service 9 || of the Complaint, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the notice of electronic filing 10 the Complaint to Defendant in the instant case. See ECF No. 4, NEF (“The Notice of 11 |/Electronic Filing of the complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for 12 || service of the complaint. The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil 13 4.”). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: December 23, 2025 16

Honorable Allison H. Goddard 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28