Gaytan v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Hugo Gaytan filed an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a social security appeal after his initial motion was denied for insufficient explanation of living expenses. The Court granted the amended motion, finding the plaintiff unable to pay the filing fees, and noted the complaint was not subject to sua sponte dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“As such, Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the statutory standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which requires a showing of inability to pay. The plaintiff's amended affidavit detailed reliance on food stamps and family support, satisfying the requirement that he is not 'financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.' The decision follows from the record recited in the order. |
Denial of Sua Sponte Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | agree with court The court reviewed the complaint and determined it did not fall under the categories for immediate dismissal (frivolous, malicious, or failure to state a claim). While the order does not detail the specific legal analysis, the conclusion is a standard procedural step in IFP cases and is consistent with the grant of IFP status. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the statutory standards for IFP status and sua sponte dismissal. It applies the 'even-handed care' standard by reviewing the amended affidavit to ensure the plaintiff is not financially able to pay. The citation to *Rodriquez Cook* contains a significant error in the reporter volume and year (169 F.3d is a 1990s citation, not 1965), but the proposition cited is standard. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order granting IFP status based on the affidavit provided.
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 HUGO GAYTAN, Case No.: 20cv153-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. AMENDED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner [ECF NO. 7] of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff Hugo Gaytan 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). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP 22 because his application did not fully explain how he covered his living 23 expenses. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff has filed an amended motion to proceed 24 IFP. (ECF No. 7). For the reasons set for below, the Court GRANTS 25 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district 1 ||court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 9 must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may 3 || proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is 4 || granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriquez 5 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely 6 || destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 7 || Co., 8335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the same even-handed care must be 8 ||employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at 9 || public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is 10 || financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 11 || Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 12 A review! of the amended application by the Court shows that Plaintiff 13 ||receives $197.00 in food stamps and relies primarily upon his parents and 14 jobs for living expenses. Plaintiff's amended affidavit sufficiently shows 15 || he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this 16 |}action. As such, Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 17 || GRANTED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 90 ||Dated: July 24, 2020 . Mitel fou Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 22 United States Magistrate Judge 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).