Richard E. v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Richard E. v. Commissioner of Social Security (Richard E. v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD E., Case No.: 3:26-cv-3569-DDL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, 15 [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16
17 18 On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff Richard E. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against the 19 Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the 20 Commissioner. Dkt. No. 1. On June 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in 21 this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is presently before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 22 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, 23 civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by any person who 24 demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A party need 25 not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 26 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is 27 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 28 necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 1 || Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 2 || particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 3 || 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981)). 4 Plaintiff avers that he has been unemployed for the last two years. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. 5 || Plaintiff reports no income other than public assistance and EBT, which total $476 per 6 || month. /d. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that he has $60 in cash and has no house, automobile, or 7 account. /d. at 3. Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 8 ||adequately demonstrated that he lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee. 9 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is 10 ||} GRANTED. 11 Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must 12 || also screen the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court must dismiss an IFP 13 |}complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous or 14 || malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See id. Rule 2(b) of 15 Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 16 |/requirements for a Social Security complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 17 || 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds it satisfies 18 || these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is neither frivolous nor 19 || malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: June 23, 2026 _— 22 Tb lho we 23 Hon. David D. Leshner 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Richard E. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-e-v-commissioner-of-social-security-casd-2026.