C.W. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-10892
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In C.W. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Kang found the complaint passed required screening and ordered reassignment to a district judge.
C.W. and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case proceeds past mandatory screening and is to be reassigned to a district judge.
What happened
In C.W. v. Commissioner of Social Security, C.W. asked the court to review the Commissioner’s decision about Supplemental Security Income. The court had already allowed C.W. to proceed without paying the filing fee and then reviewed the complaint as required by law.
The court found that the complaint met the required filing details, was not frivolous or malicious, and did not seek improper monetary relief. This screening decision did not decide whether C.W. should receive benefits or whether the Commissioner’s decision was correct.
Judge Peter H. Kang ordered the case reassigned to a district judge because C.W. did not consent to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- C.W. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 3:25-cv-10892
- Kang
- Aug. 12, 2026
Background
C.W. brought this action under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The complaint concerns Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI. The court had granted C.W. permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Because C.W. was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief. Social Security complaints are subject to this screening requirement.
Screening analysis
The court found that the complaint did not seek damages from the Commissioner. Instead, it sought an order reversing the Commissioner’s decision regarding benefits, and the Social Security Act allows federal judicial review of qualifying final decisions.
The court applied the filing requirements in Supplemental Rule 2(b)(1) for Social Security actions. It found that the complaint identified the action as one under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), identified the decision being challenged, stated the name and county of residence of the person seeking benefits, identified the person whose wage record was involved, and stated that the benefits sought were Supplemental Security Income.
The court therefore found that the complaint met the minimum requirements to state a claim for relief. It also found that the complaint was neither frivolous nor malicious and did not seek monetary relief from an immune defendant.
Ruling and next step
For purposes of mandatory screening, the court concluded that the complaint did not trigger any of the statutory grounds for dismissal. The court expressly stated that this determination was without prejudice to later decisions on the merits after the Commissioner appears and the parties present further arguments and records through the required procedures.
C.W. declined consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Judge Peter H. Kang therefore ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge for resolution. The order did not decide whether the Commissioner’s benefits decision should be affirmed or reversed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.