Cortina v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Al Ruben Cortina's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security benefits case. The court denied the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate indigency due to significant savings and lack of specific financial details, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the filing fee by December 12, 2022, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Denied“For the reasons addressed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed [Doc. 2].” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that IFP status requires a showing of indigency and that the determination is within the court's discretion. The plaintiff's declaration admitted to having approximately $5,000 in savings and a privately purchased annuity (part of which was $15,000) but failed to provide the specific details of expenses or the total annuity value required to prove he could not pay the filing fee without sacrificing necessities of life. Citing *Ali v. Cuyler*, the court noted that savings of $450 were sufficient to pay a filing fee; $5,000 is significantly more. The denial is supported by the record provided in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP motions (discretionary, requires showing of inability to pay without sacrificing necessities). It applies the cited authorities appropriately to the specific facts: the plaintiff's admission of $5,000 in savings and an annuity, combined with the failure to detail expenses or the full annuity value, supports the conclusion that the plaintiff has not met the burden of proving indigency. The court explicitly cites *McQuade* for the requirement of particularity, which justifies the denial based on the vague financial declaration.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AL RUBEN CORTINA, Case No.: 22-cv-1669 W (AHG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2] 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 15 Administration, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff Al Ruben Cortina (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 20 seeking review of the denial of his claim for supplemental security income benefits under 21 the Social Security Act. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis (“IFP”) (the “Motion” [Doc. 2]). 23 24 I. INTRODUCTION 25 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 26 California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on 27 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 28 1 to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 2 statute’s requirement of indigency.”). 3 It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To 5 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 6 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and 7 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. 8 At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 9 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of 10 a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 11 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 12 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can 13 pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. 14 Hennessey, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares 15 v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse 16 discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and 17 $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 18 (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120 19 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 20 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and the 21 magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow the 22 plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant’s 23 poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United 24 States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 25 Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on the 26 current record, Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915. In his declaration, Plaintiff states that he has approximately $5,000 in an 28 savings/checking account. (Mot. ¶ 3.) Although Plaintiff alleges the account has 1 ||decreased from $15,000 in July because he has been using the account to “pay rent and 2 expenses and debts” he fails to detail his rents, expenses and other debts. (/d. 4 2.) He 3 states that he has no dependents and that the $15,000 represents only part of a 4 || privately purchased annuity, yet he fails to identify the amount of the annuity. Ud. 2, 5 ||5.) For these reasons, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's IFP motion. 6 7 CONCLUSION & ORDER 8 For the reasons addressed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed 9 [Doc. 2]. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must pay the filing fee on 10 before December 12, 2022. Otherwise the matter shall be deemed dismissed. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: November 28, 2022 \ [pe Dor 14 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28