Alrababah v. Bisignano

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 RAHMA A., Case No.: 3:25-cv-02507-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] — 15 — Defendant. — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — 23 On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff Rahma A. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against 24 the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final 25 administrative decision determining that she was no longer disabled and, thus, no longer 26 eligible for Supplemental Security Income. ECF No. 1. Along with her Complaint, Plaintiff 27 also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . 28 ECF No. 2. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A motion to proceed IFP presents two issues for the Court’s consideration. First, the 3 Court must determine whether an applicant properly shows an inability to pay the 4 $4051 civil filing fee required by this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 (a), 1915(a). To that 5 end, an applicant must also provide the Court with a signed affidavit “that includes a 6 statement of all assets[,] which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” CivLR 7 3.2(a). Second, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to evaluate whether an applicant’s 8 complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lopez v. Smith, — 9 — 203 F.3d 1122 , 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court 10 to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Motion to Proceed IFP 13 An applicant need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but he must adequately 14 prove his indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 , 339–40 15 (1948). An adequate affidavit should “allege[] that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 16 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 17 Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339 ); see also United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 18 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (an adequate affidavit should state supporting facts “with some 19 particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is “set forth by statute, 20 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 21 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235 . Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP requests on a case22 by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general benchmark of “twenty — 23 — — 24 — 25 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); UNITED STATES COURTS, DISTRICT COURT — 26 — MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed — 28 — 1 percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 2 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate indigency based upon 3 available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 4 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). 5 Here, Plaintiff states in her affidavit that she receives $750 per month in food stamps 6 and $760 per month in Cash Aid, does not have any money in any savings or checking 7 accounts, has no valuable assets, and has no other source of income. ECF No. 2 at 1–2. 8 Plaintiff represents that she lives in Section 8 housing and pays $1,300 per month in rent, 9 pays $100 to $150 per month for electricity, and pays for food with her food stamps. Id. 10 at 2. Plaintiff’s adult children assist her with rent, since otherwise she could not afford it. — 11 — Id. Considering the information in the affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 12 sufficiently shown an inability to pay the $405 filing fee under § 1915(a). 13 B. Screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 14 As discussed above, every complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory screening by the Court under Section 16 1915(e)(2)(B). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. Under that subprovision, the Court must dismiss 17 complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 18 granted, or seek monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). Social Security appeals are not exempt from this screening 20 requirement. See Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753 , at *1 21 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“Screening is required even if the plaintiff pursues an appeal of 22 right, such as an appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits 23 [under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)].”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 24 (affirming that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners”); 25 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129. 26 Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules of Social 27 Security Actions sets forth the requirements for a complaint in an action appealing the 28 decision of the Commissioner. FED. R. CIV. P., SUPPLEMENTAL R. 2 OF SOC. SEC. ACTIONS 1 UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405 (G) (effective Dec. 1, 2022) (The complaint must “(A) state that the 2 action is brought under § 405(g); (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including 3 any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; (C) state 4 the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; (D) 5 name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and (E) state the type of 6 benefits claimed.” The complaint may “include a short and plain statement of the grounds 7 for relief.”). In the IFP screening context, however, “[t]he plaintiff must provide a 8 statement identifying the basis of the plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s determination 9 and must make a showing that he is entitled to relief, ‘in sufficient detail such that the Court 10 can understand the legal and/or factual issues in dispute so that it can meaningfully screen 11 the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).’” Jaime B. v. Saul, No. 19cv2431-JLB, 2020 WL 12 1169671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020) (quoting Graves v. Colvin, No. 15cv106-RFB13 NJK, 2015 WL 357121 , at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2015)). “Every plaintiff appealing an 14 adverse decision of the Commissioner believes that the Commissioner was wrong. The 15 purpose of the complaint is to briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal 16 conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753 , 17 at *2. 18 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently 19 stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, in his complaint, Plaintiff 20 (1) states that she brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); (2) identifies the final 21 decision of the Commissioner to be reviewed as the Appeals Council’s July 30, 2025, 22 denial of Plaintiff’s request for review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) 23 unfavorable decision, (3) provides her name, last four digits of her social security number, 24 and states that she resides in San Diego County; and (4) states the type of benefits claimed, 25 namely, Supplemental Security Income benefits. ECF No. 1. Although it is optional to do 26 so under Rule 2, Plaintiff further explains his grounds for relief from the Commissioner’s 27 decision, including that: (1) the ALJ “erroneously rejected all of the medical opinions 28 related to Plaintiff’s mental health functioning, including the opinions of a consultative 1 examiner, the State agency mental health consultants, and Plaintiff’s treating provider;” (2) 2 the ALJ “failed to properly evaluate whether medical improvement occurred comparing 3 the clinical findings from the date of the comparison point decision with the clinical 4 findings in the current record;” and (3) the ALJ “failed to properly assess Plaintiff’s mental 5 symptoms and failed to formulate a residual functional capacity that accounted for her 6 mental and physical impairments.” Id. at 3 . Upon due consideration, the Court finds that 7 Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 10 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, without prepayment of fees or costs. ECF No. 2. 11 Typically, after granting IFP status, the Court would direct the Clerk’s Office to 12 prepare and issue summons for the named Defendant, and direct the Plaintiff to complete 13 Form 285. Then, the United States Marshal Service would serve a copy of the complaint 14 and summons on Defendant. However, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules of Social Security Actions, and this district’s 16 General Order 747, a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security 17 Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern 18 District of California office in lieu of service of a summons. See FED. R. CIV. P., 19 SUPPLEMENTAL R. 3 OF SOC. SEC. ACTIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405 (G) (effective Dec. 1, 20 2022) (“The court must notify the Commissioner of the commencement of the action by 21 transmitting a Notice of Electronic Filing to the appropriate office within the Social 22 Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney for 23 the district where the action is filed. … The plaintiff need not serve a summons and 24 complaint under Civil Rule 4.”); General Order No. 747 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2022) 25 (explaining that, in social security cases, the administrative record is due in lieu of an 26 answer “60[] days after service of the Notice of Electronic Filing of the complaint,” 27 emphasizing that the service of summons is no longer a requirement). Here, no further 28 action is needed, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the notice of electronic filing to 1 || Defendant in the instant case. See ECF No. 3, NEF (“The Notice of Electronic Filing of 2 complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for service of the complaint. 3 || The Plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil Rule 4.”). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 28, 2025 . JpwornH. Xho Honorable Allison H. Goddard 7 United States Magistrate Judge — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —