Seavello v. Colvin
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and the accompanying complaint in a Social Security action. The court granted the IFP application and determined that the complaint survived statutory screening, allowing the action to proceed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the application to proceed in forma pauperis“Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiffhas adequately demonstrated that he 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, only unable to pay court costs while affording necessities of life. The plaintiff's affidavit alleged unemployment, reliance on public assistance and VA disability, and that these sources were insufficient to cover monthly expenses. This meets the requirement of alleging poverty with particularity. The court's reliance on the affidavit to make this finding is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Denying dismissal of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (surviving screening)“Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed.” | agree with court The court applied the correct statutory standard for screening IFP complaints (failure to state a claim, frivolous, malicious, or seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant). The court also correctly noted the additional pleading requirements for Social Security actions under Supplemental Rule 2(b). The court found the complaint satisfied these requirements and stated a plausible claim. While the order does not detail the specific allegations of the complaint, the conclusion that it survives screening is a defensible application of the law to the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standards for granting IFP status and for screening IFP complaints. It applies these standards to the facts presented in the plaintiff's affidavit and complaint. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature. It cites the correct binding authorities from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. There are no apparent gaps or errors in the application of the law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB A.S., Case No.: 24-cv-2441-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 On December 24, 2024, Jacob A.S. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking judicial 19 review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 20 Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application to proceed in this matter in forma 21 pauperis (the “IFP Application”), which is presently before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 22 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, 23 civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by any person who 24 demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A party 25 need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de 26 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP 27 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 28 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) 1 (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with 2 ||some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Jd. (citing United States v. McQuade, 3 || 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981)). 4 Here, Plaintiff declares he is unemployed and that his only sources of income are 5 || public assistance and Veterans Affairs disability compensation. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. These 6 ||sources of income are not enough to cover his monthly expenses. See id. at 4-5. He lists 7 assets his home, a 2014 Nissan Altima, and a 2021 Chevrolet Traverse. /d. at 3. He and 8 ||his spouse together have $200 in a checking account. /d. at 2. Plaintiff and his spouse 9 support their two sons and Plaintiff's mother. /d. at 3. Based upon the record before it, the 10 || Court finds that Plaintiffhas adequately demonstrated that he lacks the financial resources 11 ||to pay the filing fee and GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application. 12 Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must 13 screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of the United States Code. 14 || The statute requires dismissal where a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 15 be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 16 ||immune. See id. Rule 2(b) of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets 17 || forth additional pleading requirements for a Social Security plaintiff's complaint. See Fed. 18 ||R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint 19 || and finds it satisfies these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is 20 ||neither frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the 21 action may proceed. 22 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: December 30, 2024 ait 24 Tb Lh, 25 □ Hon. David D. Leshner 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28