Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
25cv3837 RBM (BLM)
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
Mina Ann P. L.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25cv3837-RMB (BLM)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT
PREPAYING OF FEES OR COSTS
[ECF NO. 2]
The 	instant 	matter 	was 	initiated 	on 	December 	30, 	2025 	when 	Plaintiff 	filed 	a
complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s “claim for disability
benefits.” ECF No. 1 at 3. 	That same day, Plaintiff filed an Application To Proceed In District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. ECF No. 2.
Having reviewed the complaint and motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to survive
sua
sponte screening.
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United
States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). 	An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if
Case 3:25-cv-03837-RBM-BLM Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25cv3837 RBM (BLM)
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
she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which states:
[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution
or defense of any suit, action or proceeding ... without prepayment of fees or
security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement
of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor.
The determination of indigency falls within the district court's discretion. California Men's
Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds by, 506 U.S.
194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion
in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency.”). 	It is
well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 	To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of [her]
poverty pay or give security for costs ... and still be able to provide for [herself] and dependents
with the necessities of life.” 	Id. at 339. 	At the same time, “the same even-handed care must
be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense,
... the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull [her]
own oar.” 	Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 	District courts tend to
reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to
other expenses. 	See, e.g., Allen v. Kelley, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff
initially permitted to proceed IFP, later required to pay $ 120 filing fee out of $ 900 settlement
proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (IFP application denied because
the plaintiff possessed savings of $ 450 and that was more than sufficient to pay the $60 filing
fee). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant's poverty must be stated “with some particularity,
definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff has satisfied her burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to IFP status.
According to her affidavit in support of application, Plaintiff is not employed, has not worked in
the past twelve months, and has no income except for the $200 per month that she receives in
Case 3:25-cv-03837-RBM-BLM Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25cv3837 RBM (BLM)
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
public assistance. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. Plaintiff is not married, does not have a checking or savings
account, and does not own a home or car. 	Id. at 2-3. 	Plaintiff’s monthly expenses total $200.
Id. at 5. 	Plaintiff further explains that she is “currently homeless and doesn’t have any money
to afford fees at the moment.” Id.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that she is unable
to pay the filing fee without impairing her ability to pay for life’s necessities. 	Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or
Costs.
SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915(a)
Complaints filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are
subject to a mandatory
sua sponte screening by the Court. 	Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1127 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Alamar v. Social Security, 2019 WL1258846, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar.
19, 2019). A complaint should be dismissed
sua sponte if it is (1) “frivolous or malicious;” (2)
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;” or (3) “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez, 203 F.3d at
1126–27.
To survive, all complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8
announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	Furthermore,
“recitals of elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not
suffice.” Id. Instead, the plaintiff must state a claim that is plausible on its face, meaning “the
pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 570)).
“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity, and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. Social security
appeals are not exempt from the general screening requirements for IFP cases proceeding under
Case 3:25-cv-03837-RBM-BLM Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25cv3837 RBM (BLM)
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
§ 1915(e). Montoya v. Colvin, 2016 WL 890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (citing Hoagland
v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2521753, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012)).
In the context of a social security appeal, courts within the Ninth District have established
four elements necessary for a complaint to survive a
sua sponte screening:
First, the plaintiff must establish that she has exhausted her administrative
remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the civil action was commenced
within sixty days after notice of a final decision. Second, the complaint must
indicate the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Third, the complaint must
state the nature of the plaintiff's disability and when the plaintiff claims she became
disabled. Fourth, the complaint must contain a plain, short, and concise statement
identifying the nature of the plaintiff's disagreement with the determination made
by the Social Security Administration and show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Skylar v. Saul, 2019 WL 4039650, *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019) (quoting Montoya, 2016 WL
890922 at *2). 	With regard to element four, a complaint is insufficient if it merely states that
the Commissioner was wrong in denying a plaintiff benefits. 	See id.; see also Hoagland, 2012
WL 2521753 at *3 (“Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes
that the Commissioner was wrong. The purpose of the complaint is to briefly and plainly allege
facts supporting the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.”). 	Instead,
the “complaint . . . must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the
Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Id. at *2.
After reviewing the amended complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established the
four elements necessary for a complaint to survive
sua sponte screening. 	Plaintiff states that
she resides within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court in Calipatria, CA and “files this action
to seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision” to deny Plaintiff’s application for disability
insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. ECF No. 1 at 2-3.
Plaintiff also states that she is disabled as she “suffered from medically determinable
severe impairments consisting of Moyamoya syndrome, status post neurosurgery intervention.”
Id. at 2. 	Plaintiff further states that she disagrees with the determination made by the Social
Security Administration because it “did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the
Case 3:25-cv-03837-RBM-BLM Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25cv3837 RBM (BLM)
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
symptom and limitation testimony that [Plaintiff] could not complete activities due to memory
problems and has ongoing low energy levels.” Id. at 3.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s 	Application 	to 	Proceed 	in 	District 	Court 	without 	Prepaying 	Fees 	or
Costs is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/18/2026
Case 3:25-cv-03837-RBM-BLM Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5