Jemi-Alade III v. Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
T UNJI J., 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O . 4:25-CV-03176
§
FRANK BISIGNANO , 	§
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 12, 2026, the District 	Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation (ECF 13) and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims
without prejudice.1 ECF 14. Plaintiff filed a Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
On Appeal and a Motion to Seal. 	ECF 16. 	The Court now recommends that
Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF 35) be DENIED.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governs Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP):
(a) Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
(1) Motion in the District Court. Except as stated in Rule
24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal
in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The
party must attach an affidavit that:
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 5.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 17 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the
Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give
security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on
appeal.
(2) Action on the Motion. If the district court grants the motion,
the party may proceed on appeal without prepaying or giving
security for fees and costs, unless a statute provides otherwise. If
the district court denies the motion, it must state its reasons in
writing.
(3) Prior Approval. A party who was permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis in the district-court action or who was determined
to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a
criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without
further authorization, unless:
(A) the district court—before or after the notice of appeal
is filed—certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith
or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed
in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the
certification or finding; or
(B) a statute provides otherwise.
FED. R. A PP. P. 24. 	See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken
in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good
faith.”).
The District Judge granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
in the District Court action (ECF 1), so Plaintiff’s Motion is governed by the Rule
24(a)(3) and § 1915(a)(3) standard. An appeal is taken in good faith if a party seeks
appellate review on a legal point arguable on its merits such that it is not frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219–20 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, an investigation
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 17 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
into good faith requires “a brief inquiry into the merits of an appeal” without
addressing the probability of success. Id. at 220. See also Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
197, 201–02 (5th Cir. 1997).
The Court finds that there are no good faith issues for appeal that would
warrant IFP under Rule 24(a)(3). 	As mentioned in the adopted Memorandum and
Recommendation, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims because he failed to
exhaust the Social Security Administration’s administrative processes as required in
order to seek judicial review of an SSA decision. ECF 13 at 4-5; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff’s Motion does not address this issue and instead seeks appeal “due to
technical issues,” including complaining that Judge Lee Rosenthal gave Plaintiff
until July 13, 2026 to produce documents showing the SSA is aware of a bank
account in his name containing $999,999.99. 	ECF 16 at 2. 	This matter is before
Judge Charles Eskridge, not Judge Rosenthal, and the rest of Plaintiff’s Motion is
incoherent and fails to identify a legal point of appeal. Beyond the lack of legal basis
for appeal, Plaintiff’s claims, that the SSA is preventing him from accessing a secret
bank account in his name containing a million dollars (ECF 1; ECF 16), are factually
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.2 	See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir.
2 These claims are similar to prior claims Plaintiff made on tax returns and to the SSA that he had
a trust fund containing $950,000, which the SSA determined was a false, grandiose statement
caused by Plaintiff’s schizophrenic delusions. ECF 12-1. Plaintiff attached records of the SSA
decision to his Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF 12-1.
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 17 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
1995) (defining frivolousness in the IFP context). Furthermore, Plaintiff attached as
an exhibit an application to proceed in forma pauperis which at least facially3
indicates Plaintiff would not be eligible to proceed IFP due to his considerable
claimed income. ECF 16-1.
As to the motion to seal (ECF 16 at 2), Plaintiff provides no rationale for
sealing the case. Courts have discretion to seal cases or filings but must balance the
strong presumption of public access to judicial records with particular reasons for
sealing documents. 	Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418–19 (5th
Cir. 2021). 	Plaintiff provides no basis for sealing the case and the Court does not
find the need for additional protections beyond those already in place in Social
Security cases.
For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion To
Proceed In Forma Pauperis On Appeal and Motion to Seal (ECF 16) be DENIED.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
3 Plaintiff’s application may not accurately represent his income because he labeled his
employment as “confidential” and “self-employed,” and he has a documented history of inflating
his reported income due to his schizophrenia, as mentioned supra, note 2.
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 17 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on July 06, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-03176 Document 17 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5