Caryn K. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a Social Security appeal. The court denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to provide specific income details and listed significant assets, failing to establish poverty with particularity.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“The IFP motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that a plaintiff must state facts regarding poverty with particularity. The order recites that the plaintiff's IFP form was incomplete regarding wages and that the plaintiff reported owning a condo, $150,000 in investments, and $20,000 in the bank. Given these reported assets, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of establishing poverty. The denial is supported by the record cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the motion. It cites the correct legal standard for IFP eligibility in the Ninth Circuit and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order (incomplete form and reported assets). The reasoning is sufficient to support the denial.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || CARYN K., Case No.: 26-cv-3743-AGS-BJW 4 pean ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S IFP 5 || V. MOTION (ECF 2) 6 || COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 4 SECURITY, g Defendant. 9 In this Social Security appeal, plaintiff moves to proceed without paying the usual 10 || court-filing fees of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, 11 || United States District Court, Southern District of California (effective Dec. 1, 2023). If 12 || granted the right to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a plaintiff can proceed without 13 || paying those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To qualify for 14 || that status, plaintiff must “state the facts as to [plaintiffs] poverty with some particularity.” 15 || Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). 16 Plaintiff has not met this standard, as she submitted an incomplete IFP form—it 17 || didn’t list her “gross pay or wages” nor her “take-home pay or wages.” (ECF 2, at 1.) 18 || Without that information, and given plaintiff's “condo” ownership, “[$]150,000” in 19 || “investment[s],” and “$20,000” in the bank, (id. at 2), plaintiff has not established with 20 || “particularity” any state of “poverty,” see Jefferson, 277 F.2d at 725. 21 The IFP motion is DENIED. By August 4, 2026, plaintiff must either pay the filing 22 || fee or resubmit a completed IFP request. 23 Dated: July 21, 2026 l/ — 24 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 ]
Cites, in this corpus
- Leroy Jefferson v. United States of America, Undocketed 723 · 1960-04-25