Powers v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Sarah Anne Powers filed a social security appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court granted the motion to proceed IFP.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“As such, Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for IFP status, noting that a plaintiff need not be completely destitute but must show an inability to pay fees. The court reviewed the amended affidavit and found that the plaintiff receives no income and relies on her mother for support, which satisfies the requirement of showing an inability to pay. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status and applies them to the facts presented in the plaintiff's affidavit. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature. The court also noted in a footnote that the complaint was not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which is a standard part of IFP review in this district.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARAH ANNE POWERS, Case No.: 20-cv-1029-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner [ECF NO. 2] of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Sarah Anne Powers 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. 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 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 amended application by the Court shows that Plaintiff 10 ||receives no income but relies on her mother for support. Plaintiff's amended 11 || affidavit sufficiently shows she is unable to pay the fees or post securities 12 ||required to maintain this action. As such, Plaintiff's amended motion to 13 || proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: June 14, 2020 . Mitel fou Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 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).