Randall v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Donnell R. filed a social security appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 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“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The plaintiff's affidavit demonstrates income of approximately $900/month and expenses of $700-$900/month, leaving little to no disposable income. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a party is entitled to proceed IFP if they cannot afford the fees. The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute. The record supports the finding of inability to pay. |
Complaint not subject to sua sponte dismissal“Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | unsure The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found no grounds for dismissal (frivolousness, failure to state a claim, etc.). While the order does not detail the specific legal analysis of the claims, the conclusion is a standard procedural step in IFP cases. Without the complaint text, it is difficult to verify the substantive legal sufficiency, but the procedural ruling is consistent with the statute. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant statutes and case law for IFP motions. It applies the 'not completely destitute' standard appropriately to the plaintiff's financial affidavit. The sua sponte dismissal review is procedurally correct, though the reasoning is brief.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DONNELL R., Case No.: 21cv1189-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 14 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 15 16 On June 29, 2021, Donnell R. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security 17 appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18 405(g), challenging the denial of Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental 19 Security Income benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a 20 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). For the reasons 21 set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 23 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 24 must pay a filing fee of $400.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 25 26 1 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of 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., 8335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 7 Plaintiff declares that he receives “[r]oughly” $900.00 per month from 8 unemployment payments and public assistance. (ECF No. 2 at 2). 9 ||Specifically, Plaintiff receives $234.00 per month in food stamps and $167.00 10 ||per week from unemployment. (/d.). Plaintiff further declares that he has 11 to $20 in cash and owns a 2002 Volkswagen convertible valued between 12 ||$1,500.00 to $8,500.00. Ud. at 2-3). Plaintiff explains that his monthly 13 ||expenses are around $700.00 to $900.00 per month. (Ud. at 5). Plaintiffs 14 || affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees or post securities 15 ||required to maintain this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs 16 || motion to proceed IFP. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs 17 ||complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 2021 Mitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 || administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.