Sierra Bell v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00950
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Sierra Bell, Case No. 2:25-cv-00950-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 7 PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 8) AND SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1) Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 8 Security,

9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff Sierra Bell filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and 12 Complaint. ECF Nos. 8, 1-1. This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. The 13 Court GRANTS plaintiff’s IFP application. 14 I. Whether Plaintiff May Proceed in Forma Pauperis 15 The Court denied plaintiff’s prior IFP application and ordered her to file a IFP long-form 16 application or pay the filing fee if she wanted to proceed in this matter. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff’s original 17 IFP was denied because the application did not include sufficiently outline plaintiff’s income or her food 18 expenses. Id. 19 The Court now finds that plaintiff now qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff filed a long-form IFP 20 application. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff notes that she pays for $292 in food expenses with food stamps. ECF 21 No. 8 at 4. Plaintiff also notes that she is currently unemployed, cannot find work because of her health 22 condition, and lives with her mom. See id. at 2, 4-5. She also has no current assets. Id. at 3. Therefore, 23 the Court finds that plaintiff addresses the discrepancies and inconsistences in her prior IFP application 24 25 1 1 and adequately shows she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 2 Plaintiff may proceed with this action without paying the filing fee. 3 II. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Plausible Claim 4 a. Legal Standard 5 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 6 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 8 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 9 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 10 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 11 In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material 12 allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the 13 plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a court dismisses a complaint 14 under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing 15 its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 16 amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 17 b. Complaint 18 Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 19 Administration. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled as that term is defined in the Social 20 Security Act, and that she filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Id. The Commissioner 21 denied the application. Id. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not supported by 22 the evidence. Id. Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner to this Court. Id. 23 Plaintiff may appeal to this Court the Commissioner’s denial of her application for Disability 24 Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. This Court has 25 2 1 jurisdiction over the matter. /d. Construing plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, 2 || the Court finds that plaintiff has asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Russell, 621 F.2d 3 1039. 4 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 5 IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 7 permitted to maintain this action without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the 8 giving of security. 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint shall 10 be served on the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for 11 Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 12 3. The Court accepts defendant counsel’s Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 9) and filings (ECF 13 Nos. 10, 11, 13) as proper that the IFP application has now been granted. The Court also 14 accepts plaintiff's filing (ECF No. 12) as proper for the same reason. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED November 17, 2025.

Upiied States Magis raté Judge UV 22 23 24 25