Latour v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Debra L. filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security disability case, which the court denied based on her reported monthly income exceeding her expenses. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 30 days to pay the $400 filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed IFP Denied“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP with leave to pay the filing fee.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard that a plaintiff must show they cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life. The record recited in the order shows the plaintiff has a monthly surplus of $600-$800 and lists $400 for recreation as an expense. Denying IFP status based on the presence of non-necessity expenses and a monthly surplus is a defensible application of the statute and case law cited. |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice“Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a);” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural consequence when a motion for IFP is denied and the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. The court provided a 30-day window to pay, which aligns with standard practice for curing this deficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant statutory provision (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)) and applies the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the 'necessities of life' standard. The court explicitly connects the plaintiff's reported financial data (surplus income and non-necessity expenses) to the legal standard, providing a clear and logical basis for the denial. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBRA L., Case No.: 20-CV-42 JLS (BGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (ECF No. 3) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Debra L. has filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the Social 19 Security Administration’s denial of Plaintiff’s disability claim (ECF No. 1) and a Motion 20 for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3). For the reasons set 21 forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP with leave to pay the 22 filing fee. 23 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize a plaintiff to pursue a case 24 without payment of the filing fee. Whether an affiant has satisfied § 1915(a) falls within 25 “the reviewing court[’s] . . . sound discretion.” California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 26 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). A party need 27 not “be absolutely destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 28 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty 1 ‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 2 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.3d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 3 1981). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the 4 affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. “But, the same 5 even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 6 underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who 7 is financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 F. 8 Supp. 848, 850 (D. R.I. 1984) 9 Here, the IFP application indicates the total amount that Plaintiff “expect[s] [she] 10 will continue to receive each month” is $5,876.93. (Mot. at 3.) She indicates she has 11 $1,437.19 in checking accounts. (Id. at 4.) And, the total of her monthly debts and 12 obligations is between $5,051.94 and $5,251.94.1 (Id. at 8–9.) The amount of money 13 Plaintiff indicates she expects to continue to receive on a monthly basis exceeds her 14 monthly debts and obligations by more than $600 to $800. Additionally, among Plaintiff’s 15 monthly debts and obligations is $400 for recreation. 16 Based on this information, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown she cannot pay 17 the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. The amount of money Plaintiff 18 indicates she expects to receive on a monthly basis exceeds her expected monthly debts 19 and obligations by enough that she could pay the one-time filing fee without impacting her 20 regular expenses. Additionally, her debts and obligations include at least one item that is 21 not a necessity of life and could be foregone or reduced to pay the filing fee. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 1 The Court list’s Plaintiff’s financial obligations as a range because it is not clear if Plaintiff’s obligations under Question No. 9 includes the $200 per month she contributes to supporting her son, listed under 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; 4 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure 5 to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a); and 6 3. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is 7 electronically docketed to pay the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28