Harold G. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.

D. Nevada

Harold G. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.

DecidedJanuary 9, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-02591

StatusUnknown

This text of Harold G. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, et al. (Harold G. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold G. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Harold G., 2:25-cv-02591-MDC 5 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING SOCIAL SECURITY 6 vs. IFP APPLICATIONS (ECF NOS. 1 and 2) 7 AND SCREENING COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1) Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 8 Security, et al.,

9 Defendant(s). 10 Plaintiff Harold G. filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), a 11 corrected Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, and 2. 12 This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s 13 corrected IFP application (ECF No. 2) and DENYING the first filed IFP application (ECF No. 1) as 14 MOOT. The Court now screens the complaint. 15 I. WHETHER PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 Plaintiff’s corrected IFP application is complete as he provides responses to all questions. ECF 17 No. 2. Plaintiff is unemployed and has minimal assets. Id. The Court grants plaintiff’s IFP application. 18 II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATES A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM 19 A. Legal Standard 20 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 21 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 22 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 24 25 1 1 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 2 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 3 In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material 4 allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the 5 plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a court dismisses a complaint 6 under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing 7 its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 8 amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 9 B. Complaint 10 Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 11 Administration. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled as that term is defined in the Social 12 Security Act, and that he filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Id. The Commissioner 13 denied the application. Id. He argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not supported by 14 the evidence. Id. Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner to this Court. Id. 15 Plaintiff may appeal to this Court the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Disability 16 Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. This Court has 17 jurisdiction over the matter. Id. Construing plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, 18 the Court finds that plaintiff has asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Russell, 621 F.2d 19 at 1039. 20 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 21 IT IS ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s corrected Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 23 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action without the necessity of prepayment of fees or 24 costs or the giving of security. 25 2 1 2. Plaintiffs initial Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as 2 MOOT. 3 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint shall 4 be served on the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for 5 Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED January 9, 2026. Kp we

10 LY United “ae ate Jyeige 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Harold G., 2:25-cv-02591-MDC 5 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING SOCIAL SECURITY 6 vs. IFP APPLICATIONS (ECF NOS. 1 and 2) 7 AND SCREENING COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1) Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 8 Security, et al.,

9 Defendant(s). 10 Plaintiff Harold G. filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), a 11 corrected Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, and 2. 12 This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s 13 corrected IFP application (ECF No. 2) and DENYING the first filed IFP application (ECF No. 1) as 14 MOOT. The Court now screens the complaint. 15 I. WHETHER PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 Plaintiff’s corrected IFP application is complete as he provides responses to all questions. ECF 17 No. 2. Plaintiff is unemployed and has minimal assets. Id. The Court grants plaintiff’s IFP application. 18 II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATES A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM 19 A. Legal Standard 20 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 21 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 22 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 24 25 1 1 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 2 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 3 In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material 4 allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the 5 plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a court dismisses a complaint 6 under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing 7 its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 8 amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 9 B. Complaint 10 Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 11 Administration. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled as that term is defined in the Social 12 Security Act, and that he filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Id. The Commissioner 13 denied the application. Id. He argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not supported by 14 the evidence. Id. Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner to this Court. Id. 15 Plaintiff may appeal to this Court the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Disability 16 Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. This Court has 17 jurisdiction over the matter. Id. Construing plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, 18 the Court finds that plaintiff has asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Russell, 621 F.2d 19 at 1039. 20 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 21 IT IS ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s corrected Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 23 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action without the necessity of prepayment of fees or 24 costs or the giving of security. 25 2 1 2. Plaintiffs initial Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as 2 MOOT. 3 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint shall 4 be served on the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for 5 Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED January 9, 2026. Kp we

10 LY United “ae ate Jyeige 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harold G. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-g-v-frank-j-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-et-al-nvd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack