The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JESUS SALES, Case No. 1:25-cv-00847-CDB (SS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
13 v. DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING ORDER,
14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL AND CONSENT OR REQUEST FOR
SECURITY, REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS
15
Defendant. (Doc. 2)
16
17
18 Plaintiff Jesus Sales (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on July
19 11, 2025, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying
20 disability insurance and benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an
21 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). For the
22 following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and Plaintiff’s application
23 to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.
24 I. Proceeding In Forma Pauperis
25 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by
26 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses
27 [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 2) and finds
1 the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.
2 II. Screening Requirement
3 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
4 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails
5 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or … seeks monetary relief from a defendant
6 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous
7 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
8 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
9 25, 32-33 (1992).
10 III. Pleading Standards
11 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
12 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and a demand for the relief sought,
13 which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
14 purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the grounds upon
15 which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). As set forth
16 by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:
17 … does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
18 labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
19 further factual enhancement.
20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
21 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673
22 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,
23 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
24 544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
25 liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin
to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
26 defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely
consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility
27 a nd plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”
1 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
2 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint
3 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
4 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
5 IV. Discussion and Analysis
6 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying
7 disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
8 which provides:
9 Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made
after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount
10 in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil
action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such
11 decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may
allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United
12 States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his
principal place of business…The court shall have power to enter,
13 upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner
14 of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.
15
16 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
17 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
18 On May 7, 2025, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the decision
19 of the Administrative Law Judge denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits and income. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2).
20 On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the
21 Commissioner’s final decision. See id. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff claims
22 residency in Kings County, California. Id. ¶ 4. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this
23 action.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
1} V. Conclusion and Order
2 Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision
3 | denying Social Security benefits and supplemental income. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
4 | ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The
5 | Clerk of Court is directed to issue the following: 1) a Summons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the
6 | Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment; and 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for
7 | Reassignment form.
8 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
| Dated: _ July 15, 2025 | hr
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28