Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SEAN THOMPSON, Case No. 1:26-cv-04479-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. 3)

16

17

18 Plaintiff Sean Thompson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on

19 June 11, 2026, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying

20 disability benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to

21 proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 3). At the Court’s

22 direction (Doc. 4), Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 17, 2026. (Doc. 5). For the

23 following reasons, the Court finds issuance of the new case documents and Plaintiff’s application

24 to proceed in forma pauperis appropriate.

25 I. Proceeding In Forma Pauperis

26 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by

27 a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses

[and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

1 Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s application and financial status affidavit (Doc. 3) and finds

2 the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are satisfied.

3 II. Screening Requirement

4 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the

5 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails

6 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or … seeks monetary relief from a defendant

7 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous

8 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not

9 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

10 25, 32-33 (1992).

11 III. Pleading Standards

12 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain

13 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and a demand for the relief sought,

14 which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The

15 purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the grounds upon

16 which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). As set forth

17 by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:

18 … does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more

than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

19 accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

20 Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of

further factual enhancement.

21

22 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

23 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673

24 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,

25 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

26 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

27 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is

1 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where

a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a

2 defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility

and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”

3

4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth

5 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are

6 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint

7 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203

8 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

9 IV. Discussion and Analysis

10 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying

11 disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

12 which provides:

13 Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made

after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount

14 in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil

action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of such

15 decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may

allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United

16 States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his

principal place of business…The court shall have power to enter,

17 upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner

18 of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a

rehearing.

19

20 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be

21 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).

22 On May 20, 2026, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the

23 administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. (Doc. 5 ¶ 9). On June 11, 2026,

24 Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final

25 decision. See (Doc. 1). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff claims residency in Kern

26 County, California. (Doc. 5 ¶ 2). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this action.

27 ///

///

1} V. Conclusion and Order

2 Plaintiff's first amended complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the

3 | administrative decision denying Social Security benefits. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

4 | ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) 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 | ITISSO ORDERED.

7 | Dated: _ June 18, 2026 | hrnnrD bo

10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28