Adelmeyer v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Janet A.'s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in a Social Security action. The court denied the application, finding that despite reported monthly expenses exceeding income, the plaintiff possessed significant assets and income that did not meet the statutory standard for indigency.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Denied“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and *Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.*, which requires showing an inability to pay the fee while still providing for necessities of life. The plaintiff reported combined monthly income of $4,325 and significant assets (real property, gifts, retirement, self-employment sources totaling $857,500 in value, plus $20,000 in bank accounts). While the plaintiff claimed expenses exceeded income by $2,250, the existence of substantial liquid assets and high income generally precludes a finding of poverty under the IFP statute. The court's reliance on *Boudreaux v. Saul* (a district court order) supports the conclusion that someone with this level of income and assets is not indigent. The denial follows from the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the statutory standard for IFP status and applies it to the specific financial facts presented by the plaintiff. The court notes the high income and significant assets, which are dispositive factors in denying IFP status under *Adkins*. The citation to *Boudreaux* provides persuasive district court support for the specific income threshold applied. The reasoning directly addresses the motion with the appropriate authorities.
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 JANET A. , Case No.: 21-cv-00227-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [DKT. NO. 2] Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Janet A.’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 or she is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit 24 must “state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 25 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal 26 quotations omitted). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. 27 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). An affidavit is 28 1 sufficient if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself 2 [or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 3 Here, Plaintiff’s Application states that she and her spouse receive a combined 4 monthly income of $4,325 from real property, gifts, retirement, and self-employment. 5 Dkt. No. 2 at 1–2. Plaintiff reports that she is unemployed. Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims her and 6 her spouse’s monthly expenses exceed their income by $2,250. Dkt. No. 2 at 5 (stating 7 combined monthly expenses are $6,575 including rent or home-mortgage payment, health 8 insurance, utilities, food, recreation, credit card payments, and $3,500 in “Business 9 payroll”).1 However, Plaintiff lists significant assets, with a combined value of $857,500. 10 She also reports a checking/savings account with a balance of $10,000 and a business 11 checking account with an additional balance of $10,000. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also states she 12 and her husband have $800 in cash at hand. Id. 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis. See Boudreaux v. Saul, No. 20-cv-274-BGS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15 64283, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) (“Although the application reflects Plaintiff is 16 spending more that he is receiving in income monthly, the Court would be hard pressed to 17 find someone receiving more than $5,000 a month in income should be allowed to proceed 18 at public expense.”). 19 / / 20 / / 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff’s Application appears to be incomplete. On the Application, Plaintiff listed 27 $1,235 as her spouse’s “Regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or farm.” Dkt. No. 2 at 5. Although the form directs Plaintiff to “attach detailed statement,” Plaintiff 28 1 Plaintiff must pay the requisite filing fee on or before April 7, 2021, or her case may 2 || be dismissed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: February 18, 2021 □ Daud aio 6 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28