Crathin v. Bisignano

1
26-cv-540-GPC-VET
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
REGINALD GLENN CRATHIN, an
individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No.: 26-cv-540-GPC-VET
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 3]
On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff Reginald Glenn Crathin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with
counsel, filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. ECF No. 1. Along
with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),
which is currently before the Court. ECF No. 3.
I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a
plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant
Case 3:26-cv-00540-GPC-VET Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26-cv-540-GPC-VET
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
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.
2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
A party need not be completely destitute to satisfy the IFP indigency threshold. See
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). Rather, the
determination of indigency falls within the district court's sound discretion. See Cal. Men's
Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[s]ection 1915
typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining
whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency”), rev'd on other
grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). To qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit
showing that the applicant cannot pay the fee and “still be able to provide himself and
dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. The affidavit must “state the facts as to
[the] affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v.
McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit reporting that he receives $598.00 per month
in public assistance and $298.00 per month in food stamps. ECF No. 3, at 1. He is
unemployed and has no cash savings. Id. at 1-2. Thus, the filing fee would constitute more
than half of Plaintiff’s monthly cash inflow. Plaintiff owns and lives in a non-operational
motor home that he estimates is worth $10,000. Id. at 2. Because Plaintiff has demonstrated
he is unable to afford the filing fee, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed IFP.
II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING
Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP are subject to mandatory screening
by the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Social Security appeals are not exempt
from this screening requirement.” Vaughn J. v. O'Malley, No. 3:24-CV-01124-VET, 2024
WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024). Courts must sua sponte dismiss IFP
complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or
Case 3:26-cv-00540-GPC-VET Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26-cv-540-GPC-VET
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
which seek damages from defendants who are immune. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a
district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint that fails to state a claim.”); Chavez v. Robinson,
817 F.3d 1162, 1167–68 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates
dismissal”).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security
Actions Under 42 U.S.C § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) govern the standard for
screening complaints in the Social Security appeals context. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Supp. Soc.
Sec. R. advisory committee’s note; see also Vaughn J., 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (“[I]n the
context of a Social Security action, the Court applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's
Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . . . to determine
whether the Complaint states a claim for relief.”) (citations omitted).
Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the currently applicable minimum pleading
requirements for Social Security complaints under these Supplemental Rules. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. advisory committee's note (“Supplemental Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5
are the core of the provisions that are inconsistent with, and supersede, the corresponding
rules on pleading, service, and presenting the action for decision.”). The Rule requires that
the complaint:
(A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g);
(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.
Case 3:26-cv-00540-GPC-VET Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26-cv-540-GPC-VET
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
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Additionally, Rule 2(b)(2) provides that
the complaint “may include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” Id. at
2(b)(2) (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint (1) states the action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
ECF No. 1, at 1; (2) identifies the decision to be reviewed as the Administrative Law
Judge’s February 24, 2025, decision, id ¶¶ 7-8; (3) provides Plaintiff's name and last four
digits of his social security number, and states that Plaintiff resides within San Diego
County, id. ¶ 1; (4) specifies that the appeal refers to Plaintiffs’ own denied claim for
disability benefits, id. at 3; and (5) identifies supplemental security income on the basis of
disability as the type of benefits claimed, id. ¶ 6. Though not necessary to proceed, the
complaint further explains Plaintiff’s grounds for relief from the Commissioner’s decision,
including that the ALJ “failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the
severity and limiting effects of his physical and mental symptoms” and “improperly
rejected the medical opinion evidence.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 9. Thus, upon due consideration, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
See, e.g., Patricia Hermila C. v. Bisignano, No. 25CV1980-JES-VET, 2025 WL 2941114,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2025) (finding plaintiff’s complaint containing similar allegations
survived § 1915(e) screening).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00540-GPC-VET Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4