1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 SHELLI LYNNE J., Case No. 2:25-cv-01216-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 6] 10 FRANK BISIGNANO, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiff requests authority pursuant to

to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (Docket No. 6), and submitted a complaint (Docket No. 1-1). 14 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 15 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 6. The application 16 has sufficiently shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, 17 the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to § 1915. 18 II. Screening the Complaint 19 When a party seeks permission to pursue a civil case in forma pauperis, courts will screen 20 the complaint. See

(e). A central function of this screening process is to 21 “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that 22 paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the cost of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 23

(1989). 24 With respect to social security appeals specifically, judges in this District have outlined 25 some basic requirements for complaints to satisfy the Court’s screening. First, the complaint must 26 establish that administrative remedies were exhausted pursuant to

(g), and that the 27 civil action was commenced within 60 days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint 28 must indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must state the 1 nature of the plaintiff’s disability and when the plaintiff claims to have become disabled. Fourth, 2 the complaint must identify the nature of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the determination made 3 by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See, e.g., 4 Graves v. Colvin,

, *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015) (collecting cases).1 5 Plaintiff’s complaint in this case fails to state the nature of her disability. Moreover, the 6 complaint provides only boilerplate recitation of legal standards as to an entitlement to relief. See 7 Docket No. 1-1 at ¶ 8. Parroting legal standards without an explanation as to why the 8 Commissioner’s decision was wrong is not sufficient. E.g., Graves,

, *2. In 9 short, the complaint is not sufficient to survive screening. 10 III. Conclusion 11 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED with the caveat that the 13 fees must be paid if recovery is made. At this time, Plaintiff is not required to pre-pay 14 the filing fee. 15 2. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of 16 prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. The 17 Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance of 18 subpoenas at government expense. 19 3. The Clerk of Court must file the complaint. 20 4. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until 21 August 15, 2025, to file an amended complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be 22 corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the 23 Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint or amended 24 1 The rules that govern social security cases provide in pertinent part that the plaintiff 25 “may” provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief. Supp. R. Soc. Sec. 2(b)(2). In the context of an in forma pauperis screening, however, a social security plaintiff must still 26 provide a sufficient explanation as to her contentions on appeal. Jalal H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2023); see also Neitzke v. Williams,

, 327 27 (1989) (explaining that a central function of this screening process is to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally 28 do not initiate because of the cost of bringing suit”). ] complaint) in order to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, as a 2 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes earlier pleadings. Local Rule 15-1(a) 3 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior 4 pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the earlier pleadings no longer 5 serve any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, each claim and the 6 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 7 5. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set above may result in the 8 dismissal of this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: August 1, 2025 7. A : □□ a Nancy J. Ko 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28