Morris v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Grant M.'s application to proceed in forma pauperis in a Social Security action. The court denied the application, finding that the plaintiff's reported monthly income exceeded his expenses by $1,250, leaving sufficient funds to pay the $400 filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirement that a plaintiff must demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee. The order recites specific figures from the plaintiff's affidavit showing a monthly surplus of $1,250, which is mathematically sufficient to cover the $400 fee. While the court did not explicitly state the legal standard for 'inability to pay' beyond the need for particularity, the factual finding that income exceeds expenses by a significant margin supports the denial. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities. The factual findings are clear and directly support the legal conclusion that the plaintiff has the means to pay the filing fee. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine IFP denial based on the face of the affidavit.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GRANT M., Case No.: 20-cv-1973-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of [DKT. NO. 2] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Grant M.’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 18 Dkt. No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Application. 19 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 20 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a $400 filing fee. 21 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may authorize the commencement of a suit without 22 prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 23 showing he is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “[T]he facts as to [an] 24 affiant’s poverty” must be stated “‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” 25 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United 26 States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). “It is important for litigants applying to proceed 27 without prepaying fees and costs to accurately and honestly report their income, assets, and 28 1 |/expenses. .. .” Archuleta v. Arizona, No. 19-cv-05466-PHX-CDB, 2019 WL 6349071, at 2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2019). 3 Here, Plaintiff states he receives $1,374.00 per month in retirement and $146.00 per 4 |imonth in food stamps (totaling $1,520.00). Dkt. No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff reports he is 5 ||unemployed and has no assets. /d. at 2-3. Plaintiff states that he has $270 in monthly 6 ||expenses ($146.00 per month for food and $124.00 per month on “rent or home-mortgage 7 payment{s].”) □□□ at 4. Thus, Plaintiff's monthly income exceeds his expenses by $1,250, 8 || leaving adequate funds to pay the required filing fee. 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 10 || Plaintiff must pay the requisite filing fee on or before November 18, 2020, or his case may 11 dismissed. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: October 16, 2020 — Dok PT 15 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Leroy Jefferson v. United States of America, Undocketed 723 · 1960-04-25