Martin v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Donald John M. filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs (in forma pauperis). The Court denied the application and ordered Plaintiff to pay a partial filing fee of $200.00 within 30 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs“The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff's Application. Dkt. No. 2.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. McQuade) to determine that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for full in forma pauperis status because his income exceeded the poverty level and he possessed significant assets (a vehicle worth $16,500). The court then properly exercised its discretion under Civil Local Rule 3.2.d to impose a partial filing fee commensurate with the plaintiff's ability to pay, citing the specific financial details provided in the affidavit. |
Order to pay partial filing fee of $200.00“The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay a partial filing fee of $200.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order.” | agree with court The imposition of a partial fee is a discretionary remedy available under the local rules when a plaintiff is not indigent enough for full IFP status but cannot afford the full fee. The court's determination that $200.00 is 'commensurate with Plaintiff's ability to pay' is supported by the recited facts regarding his monthly income and expenses. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the statutory standard for in forma pauperis status, applies the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the sufficiency of the affidavit, and properly utilizes the local rule allowing for partial filing fees when full indigency is not established. The court's factual findings are explicitly tied to the contents of the plaintiff's application.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD JOHN M., Case No.: 22-cv-1926-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS Social Security, 15 Defendant. DKT. NO. 2 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald John M.’s Application to Proceed in District 19 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). Dkt. No. 2. A court may authorize 20 the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, 21 including a statement of all his assets, showing he is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some 23 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 24 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotations omitted). An affidavit is sufficient if it shows the 25 applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the 26 necessities of life.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). However, an affidavit can also show 27 an affiant is financially able, in whole or in part, to pay the fee. See Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 28 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984) (“[T]he same even-handed care must be employed to 1 assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the 2 remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his 3 own oar.”). 4 Plaintiff’s Application states he is unemployed and receives a monthly disability 5 payment of $3,517.84. Dkt. No. 2 at 1, 2. Plaintiff has $200.00 in cash and $200.00 in a 6 checking account. Id. at 2. Plaintiff and his spouse’s combined $3,513.60 monthly expenses 7 consist of housing, utilities, food, clothing, laundry, medical and dental, transportation, car 8 installment payments, home and vehicle insurance, and credit card payments. Id. at 4. 9 Additionally, Plaintiff lists a 2020 Nissan Versa worth $16,500 as “[a]ssets owned by you 10 or your spouse.” Id. at 3. 11 Plaintiff’s yearly income exceeds the federal poverty level.1 This District’s Civil 12 Local Rules permit the Court, in its discretion, to “impose a partial filing fee which is less 13 than the full filing fee that is required by law, but which is commensurate with the 14 applicant’s ability to pay.” CivLR 3.2.d. The Court finds Plaintiff is able to pay a partial 15 civil filing fee without depriving him of life’s necessities. See Ford v. Midland Funding 16 LLC, No. 19-cv-2349-JLS-AGS, 2020 WL 1506221, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020) 17 (denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis where “it appear[ed] that [p]laintiff still 18 would be able to afford the necessities of life if required to pay the filing fee.”). The Court 19 has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Application and supporting affidavit and determines that 20 a filing fee of $200.00 is appropriate and commensurate with Plaintiff’s ability to pay. 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 26 27 1 See https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines (last visited Feb. 8, 2023) (listing the poverty level for a two-person household as $18,310). 28 1 For the above reasons, The Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to in forma pauperis 2 ||status. The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff's Application. Dkt. No. 2. The Court 3 || ORDERS Plaintiff to pay a partial filing fee of $200.00 within 30 days of the date of this 4 || Order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 8, 2023 □ PTT g Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28