Valentin v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Paul V. filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security appeal, declaring he was homeless with minimal income and assets. The court granted the motion to proceed IFP and determined the complaint was not subject to sua sponte dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Plaintiff's affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The plaintiff's affidavit states he is homeless, has $160/month in food stamps, $50 cash, and a $3,500 vehicle, with no other expenses. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a party is entitled to IFP status if they cannot afford the filing fee. The recited financial facts support the conclusion that the plaintiff is unable to pay the $400 fee. |
Complaint not subject to sua sponte dismissal“Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | unsure The order states the court reviewed the complaint and found it not subject to dismissal under the IFP screening statute. While the specific reasons for the complaint's survival are not detailed, the court performed the required review and made a determination. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory standard for IFP status and cites appropriate authority. It recites the plaintiff's financial affidavit and concludes he cannot pay the fees. It also notes the complaint was screened under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this type.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PAUL V., Case No.: 21cv643-MDD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 10 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 12 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 13 14 On April 13, 2021, Paul V. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 15 pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 16 challenging the denial of his application for Social Security Disability 17 Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. (ECF No. 1). 18 Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 19 (ECF No. 2). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 20 motion to proceed IFP. 21 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 22 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 23 must pay a filing fee of $400.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 24 25 1 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 26 administrative fee of $50.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016)). The additional $50.00 1 ||despite plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to 2 || proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 3 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a right.” 4 Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be 5 ||completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 6 || Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the same even-handed care must be 7 ||employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at 8 || public expense, either frivolous claims or remonstrances of a suitor who is 9 || financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 10 || Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 11 Plaintiff declares that his only monthly income is public-assistance food 12 ||stamps amounting to $160.00 and he currently has $50.00 in cash. (ECF No. 13 ||2 at 2). Plaintiff's sole asset is a vehicle valued at $3,500.00. Ud. at 3). 14 || Plaintiff spends $160.00 a month on food, but has no other monthly expenses. 15 at 4-5). He explains that he is currently homeless. (Ud. at 5). Plaintiffs 16 || affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees or post securities 17 ||vequired to maintain this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs 18 ||motion to proceed IFP. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's 19 |}complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 90 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. » Dated: November 13, 2020 My, +l s | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27