1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ROSEMARY M., Case No.: 25-cv-1721-AGS-BLM

4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 5 v. IFP MOTION (ECF 2)

6 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, 7 Defendant. 8

9 Plaintiff moves to proceed without paying the court-filing fees in this Social Security 10 appeal. Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a federal district court must pay $402 11 in filing fees. See

(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective 12 Dec. 1, 2020). But if granted the right to proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed 13 without paying those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th Cir. 1999). 14 Plaintiff here has no income, only $52 in her bank account, and a car. (See generally 15 ECF 2.) This suffices to show that plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees. See Blount v. Saul, 16 No. 21-CV-0679-BLM,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party 17 need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). 18 Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous or 19 malicious,” “fails to state a claim,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 20 immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B). In the Social Security context, “to 21 survive the Court’s § 1915(e) screening,” a plaintiff must (1) “establish that she has 22 exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to

(g), and that the civil 23 action was commenced within sixty days after notice of a final decision”; (2) “indicate the 24 judicial district in which the plaintiff resides”; (3) “state the nature of plaintiff’s disability 25 and when the plaintiff claims she became disabled”; and (4) “identify[] the nature of the 26 plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made by the Social Security Administration 27 and show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Kristen R. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-1715-AGS, 28

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022). 1 Plaintiff meets all four screening requirements. First, plaintiff exhausted 2 ||administrative remedies and timely commenced this action given that (a) plaintiff is 3 ||““seeking court review of the Appeals Council Office of Disability Adjudication and 4 || Review decision” that “denied” the claim and (b) plaintiff represents that this “action was 5 ||commenced within the 60-day period after notice of the Appeals Council denial.” (ECF 1, 6 2.) Second, plaintiff resides in San Diego, within this judicial district. Ud.) Third, 7 plaintiff states the disability’s nature and start date: “degenerative disc disease of the 8 || lumbar spine, degenerative disease of the bilateral knees, obesity[,] and abdominal hernia,” 9 beginning on “November 15, 2021.” Ud.) Finally, plaintiff identifies the nature of the 10 ||disagreement with the final decision: it “was not supported by substantial evidence and 11 contained errors of fact and law.” (/d.) 12 These allegations survive the “low threshold” for § 1915(e) screening, and □□□□□□□□□□□ 13 || IFP motion is GRANTED. See Wilhelm v. Rotman,

(9th Cir. 2012). 14 || Dated: August 5, 2025 / — 15 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28