govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-05898-0

ORDER GRANTING IFP APPL.; DISMISSING COMPL. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 
1 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN JOSE DIVISION 
 
KERRIE CRAWFORD, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
SSA COMMISSIONER, et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
ORDER GRANTING IFP 
APPLICATION, DISMISSING 
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 
AMEND 
 
Re: ECF Nos. 1, 2 
 
 
Plaintiff Kerrie Crawford (“Plaintiff”) has filed an application to proceed in forma 
pauperis (“IFP”) in this action against the Social Security Administration. 
I. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an 
action without prepayment of filing fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that she is 
financially unable to do so. Plaintiff has filed a completed IFP application from which it is 
evident that her income and assets are insufficient to enable her to pay the filing fees. Application, 
ECF No. 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 
II. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 
The Court must review any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915(a) to 
determine whether the complaint is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii); see also Giselle N. v. Kijakazi, 694 F. Supp. 3d 1193, 1195 
(N.D. Cal. 2023) (confirming that social security case complaints are subject to the provisions of 

ORDER GRANTING IFP APPL.; DISMISSING COMPL. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). If so, the court must dismiss the complaint. 
The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 
relief may be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that set forth in Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Giselle N., 694 F. Supp. 3d at 1196 (citing Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper if 
“there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 
cognizable legal theory.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) 
(citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988)). In other words, the 
claim must satisfy the minimum pleading standard for the claim(s) at issue. Giselle N., 694 F. 
Supp. 3d at 1196. 
The Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 
(“Supplemental Rules”) govern social security actions brough pursuant to § 405(g) seeking review 
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 
1(a). Supplemental Rule 2(b) sets forth the currently applicable minimum pleading requirements 
for social security complaints. Giselle N., 694 F. Supp. 3d at 1197. The complaint must: (1) state 
that the action is brought under § 405(g); (2) identify the final decision to be reviewed; (3) state 
the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed; (4) name the 
person on whose wage record benefits are claimed; and (5) state the type of benefits claimed. Fed. 
R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 2(b)(1)(A)–(E).
Here, Plaintiff states that she has “exhausted [her] administrative remedies pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. § 405(g),” describes the “unfavorable decision” issued by the ALJ on April 22, 2026, as 
the final decision to be reviewed, and indicates that Plaintiff is a resident of Alameda, California. 
Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1–2, 5–6, ECF No. 1. Thus, the Court finds that the complaint satisfies 
the first, second, and third pleading requirements of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). Additionally, the 
complaint includes the Plaintiff’s full name, beneficiary notice code (“BNC”) number, and the last 
four digits of Plaintiff’s social security number. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4. Therefore, the Court finds that 
Plaintiff’s complaint satisfies the fourth requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1). See Giselle 

ORDER GRANTING IFP APPL.; DISMISSING COMPL. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
N., 694 F. Supp. 3d at 1198. The complaint, however, does not state the type of benefits claimed, 
as required by the final pleading requirement of Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1)(E). 
For this reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy the minimum 
pleading requirements to state a claim for relief under the standards set forth in Supplemental Rule 
2. 
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) with
leave to amend. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 18, 2026 
EDWARD J. DAVILA 
United States District Judge 
______________________________

Passage view · GavelSight