Hill v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to deny that motion. The court adopted the report and recommendation, denied the motion without prejudice, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion within 21 days or face case closure.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation to which no party objected. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may accept a magistrate's recommendation without de novo review if no objections are filed. The court noted the lack of objections and cited the appropriate authorities. |
Denial of Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice.” | de novo | agree with court The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny the IFP motion without prejudice. While the order does not explicitly restate the specific factual deficiencies in the plaintiff's initial IFP application (e.g., lack of expense information), it directs the plaintiff to provide 'full and accurate information, including her expenses' in a renewed motion. This implies the initial motion was deficient for lack of required financial details, which is a standard basis for denial without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is correct. |
Order to Pay Filing Fee or Renew IFP Motion“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days from the date this Order is entered, Plaintiff must either (1) pay the $405 filing fee or (2) file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis providing full and accurate information, including her expenses.” | unclear | agree with court The court imposed a deadline for the plaintiff to cure the deficiency in the IFP motion or pay the fee. This is a standard procedural order to ensure the case proceeds or is closed for failure to prosecute/pay fees. The 21-day period is reasonable and consistent with local rules and federal practice for curing defects in IFP applications. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of objections to the magistrate's Report and Recommendation. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Wang v. Masaitis, United States v. Reyna-Tapia) to justify adopting the R&R without de novo review. The subsequent order to pay fees or renew the IFP motion is a standard and appropriate procedural step to resolve the deficiency in the plaintiff's initial filing. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this type of procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANGELA H., Case No.: 24-cv-2223-WQH-MMP Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 10 MICHELLE KING, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 11 SECURITY,1 12 Defendant. 13 HAYES, Judge: 14 The matters before the Court are the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 15 filed by Plaintiff Angela H. (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 3) and the Report and Recommendation 16 issued by Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit (ECF No. 8). 17 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of a 18 Commissioner of Social Security decision denying Disability Insurance Benefits and 19 Supplemental Security Income. (ECF No. 1.) On that same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 20 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) 21 On December 30, 2024, Judge Pettit issued a Report and Recommendation 22 recommending that this Court deny without prejudice the Motion for Leave to Proceed In 23 Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) Judge Pettit ordered that any objection to the Report and 24 Recommendation must be filed by January 13, 2025. Id. at 4. 25 26 27 1 On January 20, 2025, Michelle King became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. She is 28 l The docket reflects that no party filed an objection to the Report and 2 || Recommendation. 3 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 4 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 6 report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 7 || part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 8 || district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to 9 || which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 10 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 11 || Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 12 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 13 No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 14 || reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submission of the parties. 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is 16 || adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF 17 || No. 3) is denied without prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days from the date this 19 |/Order is entered, Plaintiff must either (1) pay the $405 filing fee or (2) file a renewed 20 || motion to proceed in forma pauperis providing full and accurate information, including her 21 || expenses. Ifneither the filing fee is paid nor a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 22 |\is filed within that time, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to close this case. 23 ||Dated: February 3, 2025 itt Z. Maa 24 Hon. William Q. Hayes 5 United States District Court 26 27 28