ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[ECF No. 7]

NITA L. STORMES, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Myra Lynn Virgil's amended complaint seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration's decision and accompanying motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). ECF Nos. 6-7. After due consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed IFP.

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "A complaint appealing the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting forth the reasons why the Commissioner's decision was wrong." Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12cv00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012).

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's first complaint for failing to meet these pleading requirements. See ECF Nos. 1, 5. Plaintiff's amended complaint provides more information, specifically that she complains that the ALJ failed to find her headaches and depression to be severe impairments and erred by adopting the opinion of the consultative examiner, which conflicted with other opinions in the record and his own narrative. ECF No. 6 at ¶ 7. The Court finds that the amended complaint, on its face, appears to include a brief statement about why the commissioner was wrong.

Having found that Plaintiff's complaint survives screening, the Court turns to her ability to proceed without payment of the required fees. It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). The determination of indigency falls within the district court's discretion. See Cal. Men's Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting "Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency"), rev'd on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). "An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life." Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). At the same time, however, "the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar." Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, the facts as to the litigant's indigency must be stated "with some particularity, definiteness and certainty." United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, Plaintiff states that she does not have a job and has not had any income of her own for the last year. ECF No. 7 at 1. She states that her only source of income comes from public assistance and food stamps in the amount of $644 per month. Id. at 2. The only asset she claims is a 2008 Toyota Yaris, with a value of $1750. Id. at 3. She claims that her rent, utilities, food, and other expenses total $643 per month. Id. at 4-5. Upon review of Plaintiff's IFP application, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that she is unable to pay the fees associated with commencing this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons as set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.