Vanderford v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH V., Case No.: 21cv0003-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of [ECF No. 2] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 ECF No. 2. In this action, Plaintiff is seeking review and reversal of the final decision of 21 the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that denied Plaintiff’s claim for 22 disability benefits. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is 23 GRANTED. 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 27 the entire fee only if he or she is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 1 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the 2 prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 3 showing that he or she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 4 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. California 5 Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 6 (9th Cir. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's 7 Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 8 court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 9 statute's requirement of indigency.”). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely 10 destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 11 (1948). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the 12 affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 13 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). However, 14 “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 15 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances 16 of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” 17 Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984) (citation omitted). Finally, the 18 facts as to the litigant’s indigency must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and 19 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). 20 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit shows that his average monthly income for the past twelve 21 months was $1,800. ECF No. 2 at 3. His income consisted of $300 from employment, $600 22 from VA Retirement Benefits, and $900 from Social Security.1 Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff’s 23 monthly expenses of $1,819 exceed his monthly income. Id. at 2-5. Plaintiff’s savings and 24 checking accounts total $1,425, which is less than Plaintiff’s expenses for one month. Id. 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff indicates that he was employed from July 3, 2020 to October 21, 2020 and received gross monthly pay totaling $1,000. ECF No. 2 at 3. However, it appears to the 28 1 || at 3. Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs affidavit demonstrates that he lacks 2 ||the financial resources to pay filing fees. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d at 1234. 3 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The 4 Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte 5 || dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 7 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 ||Dated: January 25, 2021 ~ y NO ? QW 10 Honorable Linda Lopez United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 nA * The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 25 ||may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 27 || prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 0g “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim’’).