Olguin v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Joshua O. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the application, finding that the plaintiff adequately demonstrated an inability to pay court fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Adkins, Escobedo, McQuade) to the facts presented in the affidavit (unemployment, no income/assets). The conclusion follows logically from the cited law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling. It correctly identifies the statutory basis and relevant case law for IFP applications in the Ninth Circuit. It applies these standards to the specific facts recited in the plaintiff's application (unemployment, lack of income/assets) to reach a defensible result. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA O., Case No.: 23-cv-40-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff Joshua O. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 19 against the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a 20 final adverse decision of the Commissioner. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed 21 an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is presently 22 before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 23 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or 24 proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by 25 any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a)(1). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. 27 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n 28 affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant 1 ||cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 2 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). 3 || “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, 4 ||definiteness and certainty.” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 5 (9th Cir.1981)). 6 According to Plaintiff's application, he is currently unemployed and was last 7 || gainfully employed in 2019. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. Plaintiff reports no income, assets 8 living expenses, and does not expect his income or assets to change 9 || meaningfully in the next year. /d. at 1-3, 5. Based upon the record before it, the 10 || Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that he lacks the financial 11 ||resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff's Application to Proceed in 12 ||forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is GRANTED. 13 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: January 17, 2023 ae 15 Tbe! lib a ° Hon. DavidD.Leshner SSCS 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28