Rodriguez v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the application without prejudice because it was not on the court's preferred form and lacked sufficient detail regarding income, assets, and expenses.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied without prejudice“Accordingly, the application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the application failed to meet the local requirements for specificity and form. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court noted that IFP applications must allege poverty with particularity. Since the plaintiff used a non-preferred form that did not capture the necessary financial details, denying the application without prejudice to allow for a proper filing is a standard and appropriate procedural measure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the standard for IFP applications by requiring specific allegations of poverty. The denial without prejudice is appropriate because it allows the plaintiff to cure the deficiency by filing the correct form (AO 239) with the required financial details. The court provided clear instructions on how to proceed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA R., Case No.: 20cv1771-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of PAUPERIS Social Security, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 20 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 21 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. 22 DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status 23 must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. (quoting 24 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). Here, Plaintiff’s application 25 is not on the form preferred by this Court, which requires more information about income, 26 assets, and expenses than provided by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the application is DENIED 27 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 28 / / / 1 Plaintiff may file a new application for leave to proceed IFP using the form AO 239 2 (Rev. 01/15), Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 3 ||(Long Form). The form can be found on _ the Court’s website at 4 || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/forms.aspx ?list=all. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 24, 2020 NO 7 Qe F | g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28