1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER DANIEL S., Case No.: 24-cv-1559-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Dkt. No. 3] Defendant. 16 17 18 On September 3, 2024, Christopher Daniel S. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 19 seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner pursuant 20 to

(g). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application to 21 proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (the “IFP Application”), which is presently 22 before the Court. Dkt. No. 3. 23 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or 24 proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by 25 any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a)(1). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 27 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948). 28 Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges 1 the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 2 ||Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 3 ||U.S. at 339). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 4 || particularity, definiteness and certainty.” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 5 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). 6 Here, Plaintiff declares he is unemployed, has no income, and lives with his 7 ||mother. Dkt. No. 3 at 1-2. His only asset is his automobile (although it appears 8 ||the vehicle actually belongs to his mother), which he uses for doctor's 9 ||appointments and various other daily errands. See

Based upon the record 10 before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that he lacks 11 financial resources to pay the filing fee and GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application. 12 Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it 13 ||must also screen the complaint pursuant to Title 28, Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of the 14 || United States Code. The statute requires dismissal where a complaint fails to state 15 claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks 16 ||monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See

Rule 2(b) of the 17 ||Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 18 requirements for a Social Security plaintiffs complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 19 ||SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds it 20 ||satisfies these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is 21 |/neither frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, 22 ||and the action may proceed. 23 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: September 10, 2024 ait 25 Tb Lh, 26 Hon. David D. Leshner 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28