Montoya v. Bisignano

1
26-cv-0411-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIAN M.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No.: 	26-cv-0411-DEB
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND SCREENING
ORDER
[DKT. NOS. 1, 3]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Christian M.’s Application to Proceed with
his Complaint in forma pauperis (“IFP application”).1 Dkt. No. 3.
I. 	Motion to Proceed IFP
A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment
of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all assets,
showing plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The
affidavit 	must 	“state 	the 	facts 	as 	to 	[the] 	affiant’s 	poverty 	with 	some
1 	In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the
initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. CivLR
7.1(e)(6)(b).
Case 3:26-cv-00411-DEB Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 4

2
26-cv-0411-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d
938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotations omitted). An affidavit is sufficient
if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself
[or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. California
Men’s Colony, 	Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993)
(internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff 	is 	challenging 	the 	denial 	of 	his 	Social 	Security 	Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits application.
Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 6 (Compl.). Plaintiff has been unemployed for almost four years.
Dkt. No. 3 at 2. Plaintiff’s only income is $670 per month in “General Relief
and Food Stamps[.]” Id. His reported checking account balance is $200 dollars.
Id. Plaintiff’s monthly expenses include $65 for rent, $185 for utilities, $300
for food, $72 for transportation, and $33 for rental of a post office box. Id. at 4–
5. In total, Plaintiff’s gross monthly expenses exceed his monthly income by
$185.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown
he lacks the financial resources to pay his filing fee. The Court, therefore,
GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
II. 	Screening the Complaint
The Court next turns to screening Plaintiff’s complaint. See Michael
Edward M. v. Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-1138-RBM-AHG, 2023 WL 5955302, at *2
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023) (“Social Security appeals are not exempt from this [28
U.S.C. § 1915] screening requirement.”) (citations omitted).
Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for
Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”)
require a complaint to:
(A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g);
Case 3:26-cv-00411-DEB Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 4

3
26-cv-0411-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(B) identify 	the 	final 	decision 	to 	be 	reviewed, 	including 	any
identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with the
final decision;
(C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for
whom benefits are claimed;
(D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed;
and
(E) state the type of benefits claimed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)– (E). Rule 2(b)(2) further states a
complaint “may include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.”
Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies Rule 2(b)’s pleading requirements. Dkt.
No. 1. It states this case is on appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); identifies the
Commissioner’s final decision as the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
unfavorable decision; provides Plaintiff’s name, states he resides in San Diego
County; 	and 	states 	he 	is 	claiming 	Supplemental 	Security 	Income 	and
Disability Insurance Benefits. Id. ¶ 1–3. Plaintiff further alleges “the ALJ did
not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [Plaintiff’s] symptom and
limitation testimony . . . [and] did not properly weigh the medical evidence that
[Plaintiff] had more limitations as expressed by [physicians] . . . the ALJ
finding 	of 	the 	ability 	to 	perform 	work 	is 	not 	supported 	by 	substantial
evidence[.]” Id. ¶ 8(a)–(c). Finally, there is no indication Plaintiff’s Complaint
is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
Case 3:26-cv-00411-DEB Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 4

4
26-cv-0411-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 3.
In accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules, and this District’s
General Order 747, a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the
Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United
States Attorney’s Southern District of California office in lieu of service of a
summons.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00411-DEB Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 4