Swycaffer v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Joseph S.'s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff unable to pay the filing fee, 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 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard from Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., which requires a showing of inability to pay fees without sacrificing necessities of life. The record recited in the order (no employment, $1.89 in checking, no assets, income equal to food expenses) supports the conclusion that the plaintiff meets this standard. |
Complaint not subject to sua sponte dismissal“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 order states the conclusion but does not recite the specific facts or legal reasoning regarding why the complaint is not frivolous or fails to state a claim. While the result is likely correct for a standard Social Security appeal, the order does not provide enough detail to verify the application of the law to the specific complaint. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP status and applies the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Adkins) to the specific financial facts recited in the affidavit. The reasoning for the IFP grant is sound. The determination regarding the complaint's sufficiency is conclusory but consistent with the procedural posture of an initial screening.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH S., Case No.: 22cv1176-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 On August 11, 2022, Joseph S. (“Plaintiff”) filed this Social Security 18 appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 19 405(g), challenging the denial of Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental 20 Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act and 42 U.S.C. § 21 1383(c)(3). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). For the reasons set forth herein, the 23 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 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 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may 2 proceed despite plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff 3 is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 4 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a 5 privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A 6 party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 7 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 8 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit sufficiently shows he 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 $1.89 in a checking 11 account. (ECF No. 2 at 2). He has no assets. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff’s only 12 monthly income is $250.00 from food stamps. (Id. at 1-2). 13 Plaintiff declares that his monthly expenses for food amount to $250.00. 14 (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff states that his “friend and caregiver” pays for their rent, 15 phone bills, and laundry expenses using Supplemental Security Income 16 checks. (ECF 2-1 at 1-2). Plaintiff has no income to spend on bills, clothes, or 17 extra provisions. (Id. at 2). 18 Plaintiff’s affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the 19 required filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 20 U.S. at 339-40. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 21 proceed IFP. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and 22 concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(2)(B). 24 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 18, 2022 Vitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 4 United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27