Lee v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PAUL LEE, Case No.: 20-cv-1596-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16 18 19 On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff DAVID PAUL LEE filed a Complaint seeking judicial 20 review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for 21 disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to 22 commence this action. Before this Court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 23 filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 2.) 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring a party instituting a civil action to 27 pay a filing fee of $350 as well as a $50 administrative fee). An action may proceed despite 28 a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which states: 2 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without 3 prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit 4 that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 5 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The determination of indigency falls within the district 7 court’s discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), 8 reversed on other grounds by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the 9 reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has 10 satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”). 11 A party need not “be absolutely destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 12 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP 13 status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” 14 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. 15 McQuade, 647 f.3D 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). “An affidavit in support of an IFP 16 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and 17 still afford the necessitates of life.” Id. “But, the same even-handed care must be 18 employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 19 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, 20 in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D. 21 R.I.) 22 Plaintiff’s application reflects that his and his spouse’s combined monthly 23 expenses, listed jointly on the application, exceed his individual income. However, if his 24 spouse’s income is considered, their combined income exceeds their combined monthly 25 expenses. More significantly here, Plaintiff’s assets reflect that he can pay the court costs 26 and still afford the necessities of life. In addition to owning a home and a vehicle, 27 Plaintiff has sufficient funds in savings to pay the filing fee. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. 3 2. Plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date this Order is docketed to pay the 4 filing fee. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 4, 2020 : 2 p / / on. Bernard G. Skomal 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28