Andrews v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Andrea Andrews' Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in a Social Security disability case. The court denied the motion and dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiff's affidavit failed to disclose whether she owned community property with her husband.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis denied“Therefore, the Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED, and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the filing requirement.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's affidavit was incomplete regarding community property, which is a material fact for determining financial ability to pay in California. Denying the motion based on insufficient information is a standard procedural response, though the court could have alternatively granted leave to amend the affidavit rather than dismissing the case outright. |
Action dismissed without prejudice“Therefore, the Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED, and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the filing requirement.” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or qualify for IFP status, allowing the plaintiff to cure the defect by paying the fee or filing a proper motion. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in its reliance on the statutory requirement for a complete affidavit. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' decision because it dismisses the case rather than granting leave to amend the affidavit to include the missing community property information, which is a less drastic and often preferred procedural step for curable deficiencies in IFP applications. Additionally, the citation to Jefferson v. United States contains a significant error in the reporter volume and year (277 F.3d is a 2000s citation, not 1960), suggesting a potential reliance on a mis-cited or non-existent authority, although the proposition stated is generally accepted in the Ninth Circuit.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
FILED
NOV 18 2019. 3 . CLERK, U8 AINT 4 SOUTHERN Pisa af OF CALIFORNIA BY □□□□□□ |
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9. || ANDREA ANDREWS, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01873-BEN-MDD 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION □□ 11 |] v- PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS | 12 || ANDREW SAUL, Acting Commissioner . 3 of Social Security, .
i4 || - Defendant.| .
15 16 Before this Court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), filed by 17 || Plaintiff Andrea Andrews. (Docket No. 2.) Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial 18 review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for 19 || disability benefits. (Docket No. 1.) 0 __ All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 1 || United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire 73 fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under 28 ||U-S.C. § 1915¢a)(1), :
5 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, _ prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding ... without □ 26 prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit 77 that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. . 28 . □ 1 _ A party “need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma 2 pauperis statute.” Jefferson vy. United States, 277 F.3d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). □□□□ 3 || ‘the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 4 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances 5 ||of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.’”” 6 || Anderson v. California, No. 3:10-cv-2216 MMA (AJB), 2010 WL. 5056019, at *1 (S.D. 7 Dec: 6, 2010) (internal citation omitted). Thus, a court may deny IFP status to an 8 |i applicant who can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. Greene 9 Rodriguez, No. 3:07-cv-1888 W (BLM), 2008 WL 816797 (S.D., Cal. Mar. 24, 2008). 10 || Here, Plaintiff claims she is and has remained unemployed for the past twelve 11 |}months. (Doc. No. 2 at 2-3.) Asa result, she has not received any wages or take- 12 ||home pay during that time. Jd. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims not to possess any assets 13 |laside from a bank account containing $250.00. /d. at 24/4. Plaintiff's affidavit reflects | 14 |/she has monthly expenses of approximately $5,740.00. Jd. 46. This includes $2,100 for 15 rent, $990 for automobile payments, $1,000 for credit card bills, $600 for food, $250 for 16 || utilities, and $800 for medications and miscellaneous expenses. Id. 17 The Court has examined the Plaintiff's affidavit and determined that she has not □ 18 || provided sufficient information to establish an entitlement to IFP status. Plaintiff's 19 affidavit does not indicate if she owns community property with her husband. 20 || Considering the aforementioned, the Court is unable to determine if Plaintiff is entitled to 21 status. 22 || Therefore, the Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED, and the action is DISMISSED 23 |) without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the filing requirement. To have this 24 reopened, Plaintiff must, no later than December 6, 2019, pay the filing fee or file 25 ||a new motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff decides to file a new motion to proceed IFP, 26 || she should take care to fully and accurately inform the Court of her financial status. If 27 || Petitioner does not pay the filing fee or submit a new motion, this action shall remain 28 closed without further Order of the Court. For Plaintiff's convenience, the Clerk of Cour 2 .
1 || shall attach to this Order a blank in forma pauperis application. . IT IS SO ORDERED. . 3 Dated: November 2”. 2019 : 4 ‘HON: ‘RT. BENITE 5 | _ _Onited States District Judge 6 7H 10 i |} □□ □□ 16 17 19 20 21 92 23 24 || oe 25 oe 06 . .
27 28 □□