Martinez v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a social security appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the motion to proceed IFP because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee, citing significant assets and income.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The court's decision is supported by the facts recited in the order. The plaintiff reported a monthly pension of $319.00 and assets including $2,100.00 in a bank account and '25k' in stocks and bonds. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a party must demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee. The presence of $2,100 in liquid assets and significant investment assets suggests the plaintiff has the means to pay the $400 filing fee, or at least that the affidavit of indigency was not credible or complete. The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be destitute but must show inability to pay. The denial is a reasonable exercise of discretion based on the financial data provided. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the filing fee and the IFP exception. It cites appropriate case law to establish the standard for IFP relief (not requiring destitution, but requiring inability to pay). The factual findings (income and assets) are sufficient to support the conclusion that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving indigency. The footnote correctly notes that the complaint was reviewed for frivolousness under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found not subject to dismissal, which is a separate and correct procedural step.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANCARLOS MARTINEZ, Case No.: 20-cv-1061-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 3] 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On, June 10, 2020, Plaintiff Sancarlos Martinez filed this social security 18 appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 19 §405(g), challenging the denial of his application for disability benefits. (ECF 20 No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 22 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 A review! of the application by the Court shows that Plaintiff has failed 10 ||to demonstrate how Plaintiff covers his living expenses of approximately 11 ||$4400.00 (ECF 38) other than by receiving a pension of $319.00 a month. It 12 ||also appears that Plaintiff has $2100.00 in a bank account, stocks and bonds 13 the amount of “25k.” (ECF No. 2). As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs 14 |}motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 If Plaintiff seeks to resubmit his request, he is directed to complete form 16 239 (Rev. 01/15), Application to Proceed In District Court Without 17 Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form). The form can be found on the Court’s 18 || website at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/forms.aspx?list=all. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 19, 2020 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 || 26 ||1 The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, and concludes it is not subject to sua 97 sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).