Orquidea Rojas v. Social Security Administration
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the Social Security Administration. The court denied the motion without prejudice due to the incompleteness of the plaintiff's affidavit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a renewed application by October 11, 2026, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, which requires an affidavit showing inability to pay costs while still affording necessities of life. The order identifies specific deficiencies in the plaintiff's affidavit: a contradiction between claiming $0 income and stating dependence on spouse's social security, failure to disclose the spouse's income amount, and blank fields for housing and expenses. Denying the motion without prejudice and providing a deadline to cure is a standard and appropriate procedural response to an incomplete IFP application. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent. It specifically points to factual inconsistencies and omissions in the plaintiff's affidavit (contradictory income statements, missing spouse income details, blank expense fields) to support the conclusion that the affidavit lacks the required 'particularity, definiteness and certainty.' The remedy of denial without prejudice with a deadline to cure is procedurally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORQUIDEA ROJAS, Case No.: 26-cv-4567-RSH-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 On August 10, 2026, plaintiff Orquidea Rojas, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit 18 against defendant Social Security Administration along with a motion to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1; 2. 20 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 21 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 22 23 24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); United States Courts, District Court 26 Miscellaneous Fee Schedule § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 2 only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 3 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999); see Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. 4 Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“All persons, not just prisoners, may 5 seek IFP status.”). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without 6 the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 7 showing an inability to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in 8 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the 9 court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 10 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 11 In her application, Plaintiff states that her spouse received social security payments 12 and that she depends on what her spouse is paid to support herself. ECF No. 2 at 2-3. 13 However, she does not disclose the amount her spouse receives in social security and 14 claims both her and her spouse’s monthly income is $0. See id. at 1-2. The application 15 states that Plaintiff lives with her spouse, but contains no information reflecting 16 homeownership, or mortgage or rental payments, suggesting that the affidavit is 17 incomplete. See id. at 2-4. Plaintiff also leaves all of her monthly expenses blank. See id. 18 at 4. Based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the information 19 provided, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee 20 and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is DENIED without 2 || prejudice. See ECF No. 2. 3 Plaintiff shall have until October 11, 2026, to cither pay the filing fee, or file a 4 ||renewed application to proceed IFP. If the filing fee is not paid or a renewed application to 5 || proceed IFP is not filed by October 11, 2026, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the case 6 || without prejudice and terminate the action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 11, 2026 ohut C [onan 10 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28