Allen v. Kijakazi, 3:22-cv-00277

Plaintiff Karen A. filed suit on March 1, 2022, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final denial of Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits following remand.
Along with her complaint, Karen A. moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Her affidavit states monthly SSA disability $1,147 and food stamps $472; monthly expenses about $966; checking account balance $4,011 that largely reflects a recent retroactive SSA payment; she reports homelessness since 2013 and no other significant assets.
The Court applied the two-part IFP analysis: (1) whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the $400 filing fee and (2) mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether the complaint states a claim.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the ALJ on remand failed to give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her symptom testimony about concentration and stress and failed to consider rebuttal evidence, resulting in an unsupported finding that she can perform work.
The Court found Plaintiff sufficiently indigent to waive the filing fee, concluded the complaint adequately alleged grounds for reversal/remand, granted IFP, and directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshal Service to effect service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff is indigent and entitled to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)	Karen A. says her monthly income and expenses, lack of assets, and homelessness show inability to pay the $400 filing fee	No contest in the record that would overcome affidavit; no contrary proof presented	Court: Plaintiff has shown inability to pay; IFP granted
Whether the complaint survives mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i.e., states a claim)	Karen A. identifies specific ALJ errors: insufficient reasons to reject symptom testimony (concentration/stress) and failure to consider rebuttal evidence causing lack of substantial evidence	Commissioner would assert the ALJ decision is supportable (not detailed in order)	Court: Complaint is sufficiently specific to state a claim for reversal or remand; screening satisfied

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (IFP screening and dismissal standards)
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (U.S.) (indigency standard for IFP)
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.) (no rigid benchmark; case-by-case IFP inquiry)
California Men's Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854 (9th Cir.) (district court discretion in assessing indigency)
Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir.) (indigency assessment authority)
United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir.) (requirement that affidavits state facts with particularity)
Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.) (supporting authority on affidavit particularity)
Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R.I.) (denying IFP where applicant can materially pay fees)
Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.) (§ 1915(e)(2)(B) not limited to prisoners)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (pleading standard requiring factual enhancement)