Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
26-CV-64 JLS (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
JOSE ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26-CV-64 JLS (VET)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR
COSTS; AND
(2) SCREENING COMPLAINT
(ECF Nos. 1, 2).
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Jose Armando Rodriguez’s Complaint
(“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2). Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Complaint
and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-00064-JLS-VET Document 9 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
26-CV-64 JLS (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
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee
only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
Section 1915(a)(1) provides:
[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.
As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant
IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 	See
Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“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.”), reversed on other grounds
by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where
it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to
obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.
1960). 	“Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some
particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.
1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff.
Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Id.
Case 3:26-cv-00064-JLS-VET Document 9 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
26-CV-64 JLS (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
In Plaintiff’s IFP Application, Plaintiff states that his monthly income is $570.00—
from food stamps and help from family. IFP App. at 2. Plaintiff lists no assets, employer,
or savings and states his monthly expenses total $570.00. 	See generally id. 	The Court is
satisfied that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that paying the $405 filing fee would
result in his inability to afford the necessities of life. 	Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, his Complaint requires a pre-answer
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	See, e.g., Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845,
845 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are
not limited to prisoners”); see also 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.”). Under this statute, the Court sua sponte must
dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim,
or seeks damages from immune defendants. 	See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126–27. 	“The
purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not
bear the expense of responding.’” 	Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir.
2014) (citations omitted).
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” 	Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 	Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Social Security appeals are not exempt from the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening
requirement. 	See Christian M. v. Bisignano, No. 26-CV-411-DEB, 2026 WL 447422, at
*1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026) (citation omitted). 	Rule 2 of the Federal Rule of Civil
Case 3:26-cv-00064-JLS-VET Document 9 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
26-CV-64 JLS (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
Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(“Rule 2”) require a complaint to:
(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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). 	Rule 2(b)(2) also states that a complaint
“must include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.”
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies Rule 2(b)’s pleading requirements. 	Plaintiff
states that the action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to “review a decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security
Income benefits for lack of disability.” Compl. at 1. The Complaint also lists that Plaintiff
is a resident of San Diego, San Diego County, California, and identifies the Plaintiff by
name and Social Security Number. 	Id. at 2. 	The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was
denied 	Supplemental 	Security 	Income 	benefits 	based 	on 	his 	alleged 	disability 	of
schizophrenia. Id. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the
pleading requirements of Rule 2.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-00064-JLS-VET Document 9 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
26-CV-64 JLS (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
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 2).
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. 	No further action is needed to affect
service of the Complaint, as the Clerk’s Office has already transmitted the notice of
electronic filing of the Complaint to Defendant. See ECF No. 4 (“The Notice of Electronic
Filing of the complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for service of the
complaint. The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil Rule 4.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00064-JLS-VET Document 9 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5