Eastman v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Mark Eastman, represented by counsel, filed a complaint for review of a Social Security disability denial and a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the motion to proceed IFP because the plaintiff's declaration revealed a significant monthly income surplus from an options trading account.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Due to Plaintiff's monthly surplus income, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which requires a demonstration of inability to pay. The plaintiff's own declaration admitted to receiving $10,000 per month in an Options Trading Account, which, when compared to his reported $655 in monthly living expenses, clearly demonstrates an ability to pay the filing fee. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities for the district court's jurisdiction to deny IFP status. The reasoning is direct: the plaintiff's own financial disclosure contradicts the claim of indigency. There are no significant gaps in the logic provided for this specific procedural ruling.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK EASTMAN, Case No.: 21cv655-GPC(KSC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [Dkt. No. 2.] Defendant. 16 17 On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff Mark Eastman (“Plaintiff”), with counsel, filed a 18 Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for 19 disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff 20 also concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) 21 All proceedings filed with the District Court require a filing fee unless the Court 22 grants IFP status, waiving the fee of $402. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th 23 Cir. 1999); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may waive 24 25 26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. 28 1 || the filing fee if a party demonstrates an inability to pay by submitting an affidavit 2 ||reporting all assets of the individual. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff must submit an 3 || affidavit demonstrating his inability to pay the filing fee, and the affidavit must include a 4 ||complete statement of the plaintiff's assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The facts as to the 5 || affiant's poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” 6 || United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 7 Here, Plaintiff submitted a declaration reporting that he is not presently employed 8 || and that he has not worked since March 2020. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2.) He receives $732 per 9 || month in disability and receives $10,000 per month on average in an Options Trading 10 || Account. (/d.) He has a checking account with a reported balance of $200. (/d.) He 11 |}owns a 2005 Infiniti G35 vehicle. (/d. at 3.) He has three children, aged 18, 16 and 14 12 || that are dependent on him. (/d.) He claims a total of $655 in month living expenses 13 || which results in a significant surplus per month. (/d.) Due to Plaintiff's monthly surplus 14 ||income, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: May 27, 2021 72 □ V7 Hon. athe Cae 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 || (eff. Dec. 1, 2020). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 3g || proceed IFP. Id.