Palmieri v. Kijakazi, 3:22-cv-00119

Plaintiff Anthony P. filed suit on January 28, 2022 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
The court briefly lifted an administrative COVID stay to rule on the IFP motion so service could be effectuated, then will reimpose the stay after service until the Certified Administrative Record is filed.
Plaintiff’s affidavit reported no earned income in the prior 12 months, $447/month public assistance, no savings or assets, $300/month listed expenses, no spouse/dependents; he sought waiver of the $400 filing fee.
The court found Plaintiff’s affidavit showed inability to pay the filing fee without sacrificing necessities and granted the IFP motion.
The court performed mandatory sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found the complaint adequate: Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies, resides in the district, alleged disabling conditions (schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, Tourette’s, mood disorder, depression, anxiety, diminished right-ear hearing) with onset April 11, 2019, and identified a substantive basis for appeal (ALJ allegedly failed to consider treating physician and decision unsupported by substantial evidence).
The Clerk was ordered to issue summons and marshal service (at public expense); after service the court will stay the case until the Commissioner files the Certified Administrative Record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to IFP	Plaintiff is indigent: no income, $447/month public assistance, no assets; cannot pay $400 filing fee without sacrificing necessities	No opposition/No contest to indigency presented	IFP granted — affidavit satisfied Adkins standard; plaintiff cannot afford fee
Sufficiency under §1915 screening	Complaint pleads exhaustion, residence, nature/timing of disability (onset 4/11/2019), and specific alleged error (ALJ failed to consider treating physician; decision unsupported by substantial evidence)	No substantive opposition at screening stage	Complaint survives sua sponte §1915(e)(2) screening — alleges the four elements required in social security appeals

Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2015) (affidavit of poverty must state facts with particularity)
United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (requirements for affidavit of poverty particularity)
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 939 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court discretion in determining indigency)
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (IFP applicants need not be totally destitute; standard for inability to pay)
Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R.I. 1984) (courts must avoid squandering public funds on parties able to pay)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim with factual content)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (IFP complaints are subject to mandatory sua sponte screening)