Hill v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michelle M. Pettit (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security appeal and found the initial affidavit insufficient to establish indigency. The court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended IFP motion by December 20, 2024, providing specific details regarding the type of public assistance received, the schedule of that assistance, and any expenses associated with her living arrangement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended IFP motion with additional information“Accordingly, no later than December 20, 2024, Plaintiff must file an amended IFP motion indicating the following: (1) what type of public assistance she has been receiving over the last twelve months, (2) whether the public assistance is in fact scheduled to end this month, (3) whether Plaintiff has any expenses in connection with her current living arrangement.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that facts regarding poverty must be stated with 'particularity, definiteness and certainty.' The initial affidavit was vague regarding the nature of the 'public assistance' and the assertion of 'no expenses' while living with adult children, which could imply hidden costs or support obligations. Requiring clarification before granting or denying the motion is a standard procedural step to ensure the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) are met. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP motions, cites appropriate binding authority (including the Supreme Court case Adkins and Ninth Circuit cases McQuade and Rowland), and applies the 'particularity' requirement to the specific deficiencies in the plaintiff's affidavit (vague income source and zero expenses). The order does not deny the motion but seeks clarification, which is a proper exercise of discretion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELA H., 1 Case No.: 24-cv-2223-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 13 v. INFORMATION RE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 3] Defendant. 16 17 18 On November 27, 2024, Angela H. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial 19 review of the denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental 20 Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. [ECF No. 1.] Plaintiff 21 also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), in which she represents 22 her only income over the past twelve months has been $600.00 in public assistance and she 23 has no expenses because she currently lives with her adult children who provide her room 24 and board. [ECF No. 3 ¶¶ 1, 11.] Based on her sworn statement, Plaintiff also indicates she 25 26 27 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), the Court refers to all non-government parties by using their first name and last initial. 28 1 expects no public assistance next month and does not expect any major changes to her 2 month income or expenses during the next twelve months. [Id. ¶¶ 1, 11.] 3 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 4 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 5 $405.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite the plaintiff’s failure to 6 prepay the filing fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. California 9 Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds 10 by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise 11 its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s 12 requirement of indigency.”). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. 13 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the 14 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states 15 that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to 16 provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339 (internal quotation 17 marks omitted). At the same time, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure 18 that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous 19 claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, 20 to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). The facts 21 as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and 22 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 23 24 25 26 2 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $55.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55.00 28 l Upon initial review of the pending IFP motion, the Court requires additional 2 ||information to determine whether Plaintiff satisfies the legal standard to proceed IFP. 3 || Accordingly, no later than December 20, 2024, Plaintiff must file an amended IFP motion 4 || indicating the following: (1) what type of public assistance she has been receiving over the 5 || last twelve months, (2) whether the public assistance is in fact scheduled to end this month, 6 (3) whether Plaintiff has any expenses in connection with her current living 7 || arrangement. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: December 10, 2024 “WA j, aly, Iy 1. eter 10 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28