Hirtenstein v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jeffrey T. Miller (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Marcia Hirtenstein filed a complaint challenging the denial of her social security disability benefits and simultaneously moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the IFP motion, finding that Plaintiff's reported assets and income were sufficient to pay the filing fee, and ordered her to pay the fee by April 30, 2021, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“In light of the above, the court applies its discretion and DENIES Plaintiff's motion proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 2).” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, requiring a showing that the plaintiff cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life. The record recited in the order shows Plaintiff has over $3 million in assets and $8,000 in monthly income, which objectively contradicts a claim of inability to pay the filing fee. The court's conclusion that Plaintiff lacks the requisite poverty is supported by the facts stated in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the motion, cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the standard of proof for IFP applications, and applies that standard to the specific financial facts reported by the plaintiff. The conclusion that the plaintiff does not meet the poverty threshold is logically derived from the recited asset values.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARCIA HIRTENSTEIN, Case No.: 21-cv-470-JM-(DEB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 11 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 12 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of (Doc. No. 2.) Social Security, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner represented by counsel, filed a 17 complaint based on the denial of her application for social security disability benefits. 18 (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 19 (Doc. No. 2.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 20 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may 22 authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of fees 23 if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 24 that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP 25 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 26 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 27 The granting or denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases is within the 28 1 ||sound discretion of the district court. Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 2 || 1974) (citations omitted). 3 In her application Plaintiff reports a monthly income of $8,000 in interest from real 4 property and dividends. (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) Further, she states that one personal IRA 5 |}account with Fidelity contains $2,404,809 and that there is $240,000 in her checking 6 ||}account. (/d. at 2.) Additionally, a home valued at $1,100,000, other real estate valued at 7 $1,900,000, and a motor vehicle valued at $8,300, are listed as assets totaling $3,008,300. 8 || Ud. at 3.) Plaintiff's application lists monthly expenses at $11,400 with Plaintiff declaring 9 || her “need to preserve my cash to cover uninsured medical bills.” (/d. at 5.) Based on the 10 |/information provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the 11 || filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (“[A] 12 || plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 13 ||certainty.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 14 In light of the above, the court applies its discretion and DENIES Plaintiff's motion 15 proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff shall have until April 30, 2021 to pay the entire 16 || filing fee. Ifthe filing fee is not paid by April 30, 2021, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss 17 || the case without prejudice and close the case without further order from the court. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 15, 2021 Piel 20 if pray 1 n. Jeffrey. Miller nited States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28