Debruzzi v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Lisa Kay D.'s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security action and her complaint. The court granted the IFP application and determined that the complaint survived mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the application to proceed in forma pauperis“Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee and GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute, but must show an inability to pay court costs while still affording the necessities of life. The plaintiff's affidavit detailed zero income, significant debt, and monthly expenses exceeding $2,100, which she covers only by borrowing from her parents. The court correctly distinguished between the plaintiff's poverty and her parents' poverty, relying on Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. and Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo v. Applebees). The record supports the finding that the plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee without sacrificing necessities. |
Denying dismissal of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs complaint and finds it satisfies these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is neither frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed.” | agree with court The court applied the mandatory screening requirement for IFP cases, checking for failure to state a claim, frivolousness, or maliciousness. The court found the complaint satisfied the pleading requirements of Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions and stated a plausible claim. While the order does not detail the specific legal arguments in the complaint, the conclusion that it is not frivolous or malicious and states a claim is a standard judicial determination in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate legal standards for IFP applications and mandatory screening. It cites binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority for the IFP standard and correctly distinguishes the plaintiff's poverty from her parents' poverty. The screening determination is brief but consistent with the statutory mandate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA KAY D., Case No.: 24-cv-1875-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 On October 16, 2024, Lisa Kay D. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 21 judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 22 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application to 23 proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (the “IFP Application”), which is presently 24 before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 25 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or 26 proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by 27 any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) . A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in 2 forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 3 (1948). Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where 4 it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities 5 of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff 6 seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 7 certainty.” Id. 8 Here, Plaintiff declares she is unemployed and last worked in 2015, has no 9 income, and has $12,000 in credit card debt. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. She represents 10 that she has $200 in a checking account, a 2001 Toyota Solara worth about $500, 11 a 2002 Toyota Solara worth about $500 (it is unclear whether both cars are held 12 in her name), and a townhome worth between $500,000 and $600,000 with an 13 $85,000 mortgage remaining. Id. at 2. 14 Plaintiff further represents that her monthly expenses include: (1) mortgage 15 costs of $1,250; (2) utility costs of $100 to $150; (3) car insurance costs of $120; 16 (4) gasoline costs of $100; (5) food costs of $300 to $400; and (5) debt repayment 17 costs of $300. Id. at 2. Her total monthly expenses thus amount to at least $2,100. 18 Plaintiff affords these expenses only through borrowing money from her parents. 19 Id. Importantly, motions to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted when a 20 plaintiff’s application demonstrates that he or she cannot pay the court costs and 21 still afford the necessities of life “because of his [or her] poverty,” not because of 22 his or her parents’ poverty. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339 (emphasis added); see also 23 Ahern v. Kijakazi, No. 2:23-CV-02085-DJA, 2023 WL 9111316, at *1 (D. Nev. 24 Dec. 21, 2023) (granting an IFP application where the plaintiff’s only sources of 25 income were public assistance programs and his parents); Wilson v. Comm’r of 26 27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, 28 1 || Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV-1483 W (RBM), 2021 WL 6012625, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2 ||2021) (same). 3 Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately 4 ||demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee and 5 ||GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application. 6 Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it 7 |{must also screen the complaint pursuant to Title 28, Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of the 8 United States Code. The statute requires dismissal where a complaint fails to state 9 ||a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks 10 ||monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See id. Rule 2(b) of the 11 ||Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 12 ||requirements for a Social Security plaintiffs complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 13 ||SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs complaint and finds it 14 satisfies these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is 15 |/neither frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, 16 ||and the action may proceed. 17 || IT 1S SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: October 21, 2024 iste 19 Tb Loe 20 Hon. David D. Leshner 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28