Cannon v. Bisignano

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENNY C., Case No.: 25-cv-1801-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, SCREENING ORDER Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. [DKT. NOS. 1, 2] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Renny C.’s Application to Proceed with his Complaint 18 in forma pauperis (“IFP application”).1 Dkt. No. 2. 19 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 20 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if 21 the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all her assets, showing she is 22 unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as 23 to [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States 24 v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotations omitted). An affidavit 25 is sufficient if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself 26 27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the 28 1 [or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. California Men’s 2 Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (internal quotations 3 omitted). 4 Plaintiff is challenging the denial of his Social Security Supplemental Security 5 Income Benefits application. Dkt. No. 1 at 1–4 (Compl.). Plaintiff has been unemployed 6 for the last fifteen years. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff, his partner, and two children “are living 7 with [his] mother” and their “only income is public assistance.” Id. at 5. Specifically, 8 Plaintiff’s IFP application states his monthly income is $800, with $8,000 in assets.2 Id. at 9 3. His reported checking account balance is zero dollars. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s monthly 10 expenses include $150 for electricity, $300 for gasoline, and $300 for an unspecified 11 “Other” expense. Id. at 4–5. In total, Plaintiff’s gross monthly income exceeds his monthly 12 expenses by $50.00. 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown he lacks the 14 financial resources to pay his filing fee. The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP 15 Application. 16 II. Screening the Complaint 17 The Court next turns to screening Plaintiff’s complaint. See Michael Edward M. v. 18 Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-1138-RBM-AHG, 2023 WL 5955302, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023) 19 (“Social Security appeals are not exempt from this [28 U.S.C. § 1915] screening 20 requirement.”) (citations omitted). 21 Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social 22 Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Supplemental Rules”) require a complaint to 23 include the following information: 24 (A) state that the action is brought under § 405(g); 25 (B) identify the final decision to be reviewed, including any identifying designation provided by the Commissioner with the final decision; 26 27 2 Plaintiff’s only asset is a 2012 Chevy Suburban valued at $8,000. 28 1 (C) state the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; 2 (D) name the person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and 3 (E) state the type of benefits claimed. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)–(E). Rule 2(b)(2) further states a complaint “may 5 include a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief.” 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies Rule 2(b)’s pleading requirements. Dkt. No. 1. It 7 states this case is on appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);3 identifies the Commissioner’s final 8 decision as the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) unfavorable decision; provides 9 Plaintiff’s name, states he resides in San Diego County; and states he is claiming 10 Supplemental Security Income. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff further alleges “the ALJ did not state 11 clear and convincing reasons for rejecting [his] symptom and limitation testimony. . . [and] 12 the ALJ did not properly weigh the medical [Plaintiff] had more limitations as expressed 13 by every medical opinion in the record. Id. at 3. Finally, there is no indication Plaintiff’s 14 Complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 15 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). 17 III. Conclusion 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in 19 District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 2. 20 In accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules, and this District’s General 21 Order 747, a notice of electronic filing shall be transmitted to the Social Security 22 Administration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney’s Southern 23 District of California office in lieu of service of a summons. No further action by Plaintiff 24 is needed to effect service of the complaint, as the Clerk’s Office already transmitted the 25 26 3 While Plaintiff does not expressly cite 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in his Complaint, he states 27 the Court “has jurisdiction to review the decision of defendant herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)” which in turn provides: “The [Commissioner’s] final determination. . . shall be 28 1 ||notice of electronic filing of the complaint to Defendant. See Dkt. No. 4 (“The Notice of 2 Electronic Filing of the complaint sent by the court to the Commissioner suffices for 3 || service of the complaint. The Plaintiffneed not serve a summons and complaint under Civil 4 || Rule 4.”). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 11, 2025 — 8 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28