(SS) Waugh v. Commssioner of Social Security

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
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEGAN ELIZABETH WAUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00086-CDB (SS)
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER,
AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR
REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 2)
Plaintiff Megan Elizabeth Waugh (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a
complaint on January 6, 2026, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying disability insurance and benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and
instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.
I. Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by
a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses
[and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and finds
Case 1:26-cv-00086-CDB Document 3 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 4

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
28
2
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.
II. Screening Requirement
When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or … seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous
“when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32-33 (1992).
III. Pleading Standards
A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and a demand for the relief sought,
which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the grounds upon
which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). As set forth
by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:
… does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673
F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin
to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely
consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth
Case 1:26-cv-00086-CDB Document 3 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 4

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
28
3
and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint
to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
IV. Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying
disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
which provides:
Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made
after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount
in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil
action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such
decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may
allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United
States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his
principal place of business…The court shall have power to enter,
upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.
Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
On November 14, 2025, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. (Doc. 1 ¶ 10).
The Appeals Council gave Plaintiff 60 days, plus five (5) days for delivery by mail, from the date
of the notice to file an appeal for judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision in federal
district court. See id. On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner’s final decision. See id. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff
claims residency in Bakersfield, California. Id. ¶ 1. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this
action.
///
///
///
Case 1:26-cv-00086-CDB Document 3 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 4

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
28
4
V. Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision
denying Social Security benefits and supplemental income. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the
Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for
Reassignment form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026 ___________________ _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00086-CDB Document 3 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 4