1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMPARO MARIA C., Case No.: 3:24-cv-00708-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff Amparo Maria C. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action 24 against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the 25 Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying her applications for Social Security 26 Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income for lack of disability. ECF 27 No. 1. Along with her Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma 28 pauperis (“IFP”) under

. ECF No. 2. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court’s consideration. First, the 3 Court must determine whether an applicant properly shows an inability to pay the 4 $4051 civil filing fee required by this Court. See

(a), 1915(a). To that 5 end, an applicant must also provide the Court with a signed affidavit “that includes a 6 statement of all assets[,] which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” CivLR 7 3.2(a). Second, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to evaluate whether an applicant’s 8 complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lopez v. Smith, 9

(9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court 10 to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 13 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 14 prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

, 339–40 15 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 16 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th 17 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins,

); see also United States v. McQuade,

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (an adequate affidavit should state supporting facts “with some 19 particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 20 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 21 Escobedo,

. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case- 22 by-case basis. See

at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty 23

24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See

(a); UNITED STATES COURTS, DISTRICT COURT 26 MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 3 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506

(1993); Venable v. Meyers,

(9th Cir. 1974). 5 Here, in support of her IFP application, Plaintiff states in her affidavit that she was 6 last employed in December 2022 and has received no income in the past 12 months other 7 than $291.00 in food stamps each month, and she does not expect any income in the coming 8 month. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. She has only $5.00 in her checking account and no assets other 9 than a vehicle she shares with her sister. Id. at 2-3. Considering the information in the 10 affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an inability to pay the $405 11 filing fee under § 1915(a). 12 B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 13 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28

is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 15 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez,

. Under that subprovision, the Court “shall dismiss 16 the case at any time” if the Court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, 17 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 18 defendant who is immune from such relief.

Social Security appeals are not exempt from 19 this screening requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS,

2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff 21 pursues an appeal of right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security 22 disability benefits [under

(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl,

, 23 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming that “the provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not 24 limited to prisoners”); Lopez,

. 25 In the past, this Court and others have applied the familiar Rule 8 pleading standard 26 to conduct the mandatory screening of complaints under the IFP statute in Social Security 27 appeals brought pursuant to

(g). See, e.g., Hoagland,

, 28 at *2-3; (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) to determine the sufficiency of a complaint in a 1 Social Security appeal); Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-02431-JLB,

, at 2 *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (same); Detra H. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:22-CV-01162-AHG, 2022

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2022) (same). However, since the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. 5 § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) became effective on December 1, 2022, the standard for 6 screening complaints in the Social Security appeals context has changed. Now, to the extent 7 that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are inconsistent with the Supplemental Rules, the 8 Court must apply the Supplemental Rules rather than the Civil Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 9 SS Rule 2 Committee Note. “Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the core of the 10 provisions that are inconsistent with, and supersede, the corresponding rules on pleading, 11 service, and presenting the action for decision.” Id. 12 Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth the 13 requirements for a complaint in an action appealing the decision of the Commissioner. 14 Accordingly, the Court must apply Rule 2 to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint 15 sufficiently states a claim for relief. Under that Rule, the complaint must: 16 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying 17 designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 18 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 19 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 20 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). Additionally, Rule 2(b)(2) provides that the 22 complaint may “include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” 23 In her Complaint, Plaintiff (1) states that she brings this action pursuant to § 405(g); 24 (2) identifies the final decision of the Commissioner to be reviewed as the Appeals 25 Council’s March 11, 2024 denial of Plaintiff’s request for review of the Administrative 26 Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) unfavorable decision dated September 14, 2023; (3) provides her 27 name and city of residence, as well as her county of residence on the cover sheet; (4) states 28 that she is claiming benefits on her own wage record; and (5) states the type of benefits 1 |}claimed, namely, both Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental 2 ||Security Income. ECF No. 1 §§ 1, 3, 7, 9; ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff further includes a 3 || description of her grounds for relief in the Complaint, including that the ALJ did not state 4 ||clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her subjective symptom and limitation 5 || testimony, that the ALJ did not properly weigh the medical evidence that Plaintiff □□□ more 6 || limitations than were included in the residual functional capacity determination, and that 7 ||the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her past relevant work. Jd. 8(a)-(c). 8 Plaintiff's Complaint satisfies all pleading requirements of Rule 2(b) of the 9 ||Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions, and there is no indication that the 10 ||Complaint is frivolous or malicious or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 11 |/immune from such relief. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint survives 12 || screening under

(e)(2)(B). 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to 15 || Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2). 16 In accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental 17 ||Rules for Social Security Actions, and this District’s General Order 747, a notice of 18 |/electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security Administration’s Office of 19 General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern District of California office 20 |/in lieu of service of a summons. No further action by Plaintiff is needed to effect service 21 the Complaint, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the notice of electronic filing 22 the Complaint to Defendant in the instant case. See ECF No. 4, NEF (“The Notice of 23 ||Electronic Filing of the complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for 24 || service of the complaint. The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil 25 4.”). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 ||Dated: April 25, 2024 _ArwiorwH. Xyolard Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge