Romero v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Juanita R. filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security disability appeal, submitting an affidavit detailing her income and expenses. 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 |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard that a plaintiff need not be completely destitute, only unable to pay fees without sacrificing necessities of life. The record recited shows monthly income of $2,040 and expenses of $2,070, resulting in a deficit. The court correctly cited Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. for the proposition that complete destitution is not required. The decision follows logically from the facts presented in the affidavit. |
Determining the complaint is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“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 court performed the required screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found no grounds for dismissal. While the order does not detail the specific reasons why the complaint survives screening (e.g., stating a claim, not frivolous), the conclusion is a standard procedural step in IFP cases. Without the complaint text, it is not possible to independently verify the merits of the screening, but the procedural action is correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP status and applies the appropriate standard from binding Supreme Court precedent (Adkins). The court performed the necessary financial analysis based on the affidavit provided. The order is concise but sufficient for a routine IFP motion. It also correctly notes the screening requirement under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUANITA R., Case No.: 21cv1296-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 4] Defendant. 16 17 On July 20, 2021, Juanita R. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 18 pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 19 challenging the denial of Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability 20 benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff filed an amended motion to 22 proceed IFP on July 20, 2021. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth herein, 23 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s amended motion to proceed IFP. 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 25 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 26 1 must pay a filing fee of $400.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 2 despite plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if plaintiff is granted 3 leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 4 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a 5 right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not 6 be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 7 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 8 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit sufficiently shows she is unable to pay the fees 9 or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff has had no 10 employment for at least the past two years and has no money in bank 11 accounts or in any other financial institution. (ECF No. 4 at 2). Her sole 12 asset is a car valued at $16,000. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff’s only monthly income is 13 from public assistance and child support payments. (Id. at 1-2). Specifically, 14 Plaintiff reports that she receives monthly assistance fron CalWORKS public 15 assistance ($630.00), CalFresh food stamps ($400.00), and child support 16 payments ($50.00). (Id.). Plaintiff explains that she currently relies on 17 rental assistance to cover 75% of her rent. (Id. at 5). Since Plaintiff reports 18 her rent is $1,280.00, the Court estimates Plaintiff receives $960.00 per 19 month in rental assistance. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff’s monthly income from these 20 sources totals $2,040.00. 21 Plaintiff declares that her monthly expenses for rent, food, clothing, 22 laundry, transportation, and cell phones amount to $2,070.00. (Id. at 4-5). 23 Plaintiff has a 16-year-old daughter who relies on her for support. (Id. at 3). 24 Plaintiff’s affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required 25 1 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 26 administrative fee of $52.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52.00 1 || filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 9 3389-340. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP. 3 || Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is 4 ||not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2021 Mitel », | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27