Nash v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court considered plaintiff's third motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security appeal, noting that the previous two motions were denied for failing to provide specific financial details. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's declaration of $400 monthly income and no assets demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee without sacrificing necessities of life.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 8) granted“Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo v. Applebees) requiring a showing of inability to pay fees while maintaining necessities of life. The plaintiff's declaration provided the specific financial details (income, assets, expenses) that were missing in the previously denied motions, satisfying the requirement for 'particularity, definiteness and certainty.' The conclusion that paying the fee would leave the plaintiff without funds for food and supplies is a reasonable factual finding based on the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP status, distinguishes the current motion from previously denied motions based on the inclusion of specific financial data, and applies that standard to the facts presented in the declaration. The reasoning directly addresses the deficiencies found in the prior denials.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHOCOLATE N., Case No.: 3:22-cv-1026-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [Doc. No. 8] Defendant. 16 17 On July 14, 2022, plaintiff Chocolate N. commenced this action against Kilolo 18 Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, seeking review of the Commissioner’s 19 final adverse decision. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff’s attorney of record did not sign the Complaint. 20 See id. On July 14, 2022, plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. Nos. 21 2 and 2-1. On July 22, 2022, this Court denied plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 22 Pauperis because he did “not provide[] the Court with any information regarding his 23 monthly expenditures, and the Court [was] therefore unable to assess” his ability to pay 24 court costs and also afford the necessities of life. Doc. No. 4 at 2 (citing Escobedo v. 25 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)). On August 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a 26 second IFP Motion. Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff attached the same supporting declaration to the 27 second Motion as had been attached to the first Motion. Compare Doc. No. 6-1 with Doc. 28 1 || No. 2. This Court denied plaintiff's amended IFP Motion without prejudice because it was 2 || substantively identical to his first Motion and was deficient for the same reasons the first 3 || IFP Motion was denied. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff filed a third IFP Motion on September 8, 4 || 2022. See Doc. No. 8. 5 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if 6 || the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he 7 she is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The statute does not define 8 “what constitutes insufficient assets,” but “‘[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain 9 || [the] benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) 10 || (citation omitted) (alteration in original). However, a plaintiff who seeks to proceed in 11 || forma pauperis “must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” 12 || Jd. (citation omitted). 13 Plaintiff's third IFP Motion includes a supporting declaration. See Doc. No. 8-1. He 14 ||declares he is unemployed and has never been employed. Jd. at 2 His sole income is 15 ||$400.00 in monthly public assistance, and he has no assets. Doc. No. 6-1 at 2-3. Plaintiff 16 |/indicates he has no debts or dependents, but that his $400 monthly allowance is given to 17 ||his guardian which “assists in living expenses, housing, and supplies.” Jd. at 3. This Court 18 notes that paying the filing fee for this action would require more than a month of □□□□□□□□□□□ 19 ||income. Thus, if required to pay a filing fee, plaintiff would have no money left over to 20 || pay for food and supplies. The Court finds this evidence establishes good cause for plaintiff 21 proceed IFP. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. 22 23 || Dated: September 8, 2022 Jk. Kn 24 Ml Ye □□ 25 Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28