Shomari Williams v. Frank J. Bisignano

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01859
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Shomari Williams, Case No. 2:25-cv-01859-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 7 PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) AND SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1) Frank J. Bisignano, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Shomari Williams filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 12 and Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. 13 The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s IFP application. 14 I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed in Forma Pauperis 15 Plaintiff’s IFP application is complete as he provides responses to all questions. ECF No. 1. He 16 and his spouse earn $2,351 in total gross income and spend nearly all of that income ($2,299) on 17 monthly living expenses such as rent and transportation. Id. at 1-2, 4-5. Therefore, the Court finds that 18 plaintiff adequately shows he “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff may proceed with this action without paying the filing fee. 20 II. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 21 a. Legal Standard 22 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 23 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 25 1 1 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 2 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 3 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 4 In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material 5 allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the 6 plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a court dismisses a complaint 7 under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing 8 its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 9 amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 10 b. Complaint 11 Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 12 Administration. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled as that term is defined in the Social 13 Security Act, and that he filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Id. The Commissioner 14 denied the application. Id. He argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not supported by 15 the evidence. Id. Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner to this Court. Id. 16 Plaintiff may appeal to this Court the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Disability 17 Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. This Court has 18 jurisdiction over the matter. Id. Construing plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, 19 the Court finds that plaintiff has asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Russell, 621 F.2d 20 at 1039. 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 3. The Court accepts defendant counsel’s Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 6) as proper given 10 that the IFP application has now been granted. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED November 17, 2025. Jp _ fo if | 15 Hoi’ Maximiléxno [). Codvillier I 6 Bhited ey Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25