Boudreaux v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff John Boudreaux's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security disability case. The court denied the motion, finding the plaintiff did not demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee while maintaining necessities of life, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee within 45 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed IFP Denied“Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard requiring a showing of inability to pay court costs while affording necessities of life. The record shows the plaintiff has a monthly income of $5,002.70 and lists $339/month for non-essential recreation/entertainment. The court's conclusion that the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof is supported by the specific financial data provided in the application. |
Order to Pay Filing Fee“Plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date this Order is docketed to pay the filing fee.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural consequence of denying an IFP motion, allowing the plaintiff a reasonable time to comply with the court's fee requirement. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and applies them to the specific facts presented in the plaintiff's application. The court notes the plaintiff's income exceeds $5,000/month and identifies a specific non-essential expense ($339/month for recreation) that could be reduced to pay the fee. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN BYRON BOUDREAUX., Case No.: 20cv274 BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security [ECF 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff John B. filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the Social Security 19 Administration’s denial of Plaintiff’s disability claim and a Motion for Leave to Proceed 20 in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF 1, 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP with leave to pay the filing fee within 30 22 days. 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 27 need not “be absolutely destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 28 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege 1 || poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 2 || 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 f.3D 938, 940 3 || (9th Cir. 1981). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 4 alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessitates of life.” 5 ||/d. “But, the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are 6 || not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the 7 ||remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” 8 || Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D. R.I.) 9 Here, the IFP application indicates Plaintiff’s average income over the past twelve 10 || months is $5,002.70 per month and that is expected to continue. (ECF 2 at 1-2.) His 11 monthly debts and obligations are listed as $5,406, including $339 per month for 12 recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. 13 Based on this information, the Court cannot find Plaintiff has shown he cannot pay 14 || the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. Although the application reflects 15 || Plaintiff is spending more that he is receiving in income monthly, the Court would be 16 || hard pressed to find someone receiving more than $5,000 a month in income should be 17 || allowed to proceed at public expense. Additionally, Plaintiffs debts and obligations 18 include at least one item that is not a necessity of life and could be foregone or reduced to 19 || pay the filing fee. 20 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. 22 2. Plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date this Order is docketed to pay the 23 filing fee. 24 Dated: April 10, 2020 7 2 p / / 25 on. Bernard G. Skomal 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28