Armstead v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Reginald Armstead's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a social security appeal. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff unable to pay the filing fee, and determined the complaint was not subject to sua sponte dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“As such the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The plaintiff's affidavit lists specific monthly income sources totaling approximately $1,372.72 and states he has no cash or bank account. This satisfies the statutory requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that the plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post security. The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute, only unable to pay the specific fee in question. |
Complaint not subject to sua sponte dismissal“The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, and concludes it is not subject to swa sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | agree with court The court performed the required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found no basis for dismissal (e.g., frivolousness or failure to state a claim). While the order does not detail the specific legal merits of the social security claim, the procedural determination that the complaint survives initial screening is a standard judicial function in IFP cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP status, applies the correct standard (inability to pay, not total destitution), reviews the affidavit, and performs the mandatory screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The citation error for Rodriguez v. Cook (year) is a minor clerical error that does not affect the legal reasoning or outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD ARMSTEAD, Case No.: 19cv2302-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner [ECF NO. 3] of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff Reginald Armstead filed this social 18 security appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 19 U.S.C. §405(g), challenging the denial of his application for disability 20 benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the 22 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district 24 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 25 must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may 26 proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is 1 || granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriquez 9 ||v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely 3 destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 4 || Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the same even-handed care must be 5 ||employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at 6 || public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is 7 ||financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 8 || Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 9 Plaintiff states that his per month income is limited to $502.00 in 10 retirement, $424.72 in disability, $252.00 in public assistance and $194.00 in 11 ||food stamps. Plaintiff is unemployed and has no cash and no bank account. 12 ||(ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the 13 or post securities required to maintain this action. As such the Court 14 GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has also 15 ||reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, and concludes it is not subject to swa sponte 16 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: December 10, 2019 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27