Heck v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Lee Ann Heck filed a social security appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court granted the motion to proceed IFP, finding that Plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fees.
| 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 correctly applied the statutory standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The record recited in the order (no income, reliance on food assistance and parents) supports the conclusion that the plaintiff is unable to pay the fees. The court also correctly noted that the complaint is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status, applies the relevant case law regarding the standard of destitution, and reviews the specific financial facts provided by the plaintiff to make a determination. It also includes the necessary screening check under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEE ANN HECK, Case No.: 20-cv-1122-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 19, 2020, Plaintiff Lee Ann Heck 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 her 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 $194 in government food assistance and her 11 ||} parents for support. Plaintiff's amended affidavit sufficiently shows she is 12 |}unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. As 13 ||such, Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: June 29, 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).