Allen v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Brandy A. filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action seeking review of a Social Security disability denial. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff indigent, and determined the complaint was not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), noting that a party need not be completely destitute. The order recites specific facts from the affidavit (no monthly income, modest savings less than one month's rent) that satisfy the requirement of showing an inability to pay fees while affording necessities of life. The decision follows logically from the cited authorities and the recited record. |
Complaint Not Dismissed Sua Sponte“The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, and concludes it is not subject sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | unsure The court correctly identified its obligation to screen IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). However, the order provides no reasoning or factual basis for why the complaint survives this screening. It simply states the conclusion. While the result may be correct, the order fails to explain how the complaint avoids the statutory grounds for dismissal (frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from immune defendant). |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct in granting IFP status based on the affidavit facts provided. However, it is deficient in its treatment of the mandatory screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court cites the statute and relevant case law requiring dismissal of non-meritorious claims but provides no analysis or explanation for why this specific complaint survives that screening. It simply states the conclusion. While the result (allowing the case to proceed) is likely correct given the context of a Social Security appeal, the order fails to demonstrate the application of the law to the facts of the complaint, creating a gap in the reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDY A., Case No.: 21cv981-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of [ECF No. 3] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 ECF No. 3. In this action, Plaintiff is seeking review and reversal of the final decision of 20 the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that denied Plaintiff’s claim for 21 disability benefits. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is 22 GRANTED. 23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 25 $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 26 the entire fee only if he or she is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 28 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the 1 prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 2 showing that he or she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. California 4 Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 5 (9th Cir. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's 6 Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 7 court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 8 statute's requirement of indigency.”). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely 9 destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 10 (1948). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the 11 affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 12 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). However, 13 “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 14 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances 15 of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” 16 Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, the facts as to the 17 litigant’s indigency must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” 18 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). 19 Here, Plaintiff’s application shows that she has no monthly income. ECF No. 3 20 at 1–2. The amount in savings and checking for Plaintiff is modest and less than one 21 month’s rent. Id. at 2, 4–5. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an 22 affidavit that sufficiently shows she lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || pauperis. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, and concludes it is not subject 2 sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ! 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: June 21, 2021 =~ WO > WF) 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 4 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 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); see_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 28 “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim”).