Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Plaintiff Phonethip Rattanasinh's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds that her Social Security complaint satisfies the requirements of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions and passes screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court directs the Clerk to transmit notice to the Social Security Administration's Office of General Counsel and the United States Attorney's Office.
Holdings
- Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that she could not pay the filing fee while affording the necessities of life, so the court granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The complaint passed pre-answer screening because it stated a claim for relief, was not frivolous or malicious, and did not seek monetary relief from an immune defendant.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient inability to pay the filing fee to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the complaint satisfied the requirements for a Social Security action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and survived pre-answer screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993)(followed)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)(followed)
- Vaughn J. v. O'Malley, No. 3:24-cv-1124-VET, 2024 WL 3732480, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…