Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

D. Nevada

Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 8, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-02549

StatusUnknown

This text of Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security) 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

Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Ricardo Vasquez, Jr., Case No. 2:25-cv-02549-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) AND SCREENING 7 Security, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)

8 Defendant. 9 10 Plaintiff Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 11 and Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. 12 The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s IFP application. 13 I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed in Forma Pauperis 14 Plaintiff filed a long-form IFP application. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff notes that he pays for $293 in 15 food expenses with food stamps. ECF No. 1 at 2, 4. Plaintiff also states that he is unemployed and has 16 been for five years, and lives with his parents. See id. at 2, 4-5. He also has no current assets. Id. at 3. 17 Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff adequately shows he “is unable to pay such fees or give security 18 therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff may proceed with this action without paying the filing fee. 19 II. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 20 a. Legal Standard 21 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 22 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 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 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 2 1 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 4 permitted to maintain this action without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the 5 giving of security. 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint shall 7 be served on the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for 8 Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: January 8, 2026.

12 □ B Ghited ape Judge 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 Ricardo Vasquez, Jr., Case No. 2:25-cv-02549-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) AND SCREENING 7 Security, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1)

8 Defendant. 9 10 Plaintiff Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 11 and Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. 12 The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s IFP application. 13 I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed in Forma Pauperis 14 Plaintiff filed a long-form IFP application. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff notes that he pays for $293 in 15 food expenses with food stamps. ECF No. 1 at 2, 4. Plaintiff also states that he is unemployed and has 16 been for five years, and lives with his parents. See id. at 2, 4-5. He also has no current assets. Id. at 3. 17 Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff adequately shows he “is unable to pay such fees or give security 18 therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff may proceed with this action without paying the filing fee. 19 II. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 20 a. Legal Standard 21 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 22 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 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 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 2 1 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 4 permitted to maintain this action without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the 5 giving of security. 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint shall 7 be served on the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for 8 Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: January 8, 2026.

12 □ B Ghited ape Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ricardo Vasquez, Jr. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-vasquez-jr-v-frank-j-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-nvd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack