Stahl v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-00370 · 2023-03-22 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Michael M. Anello (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:05Z · confidence high

Plaintiff Lauren S. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in a Social Security action, claiming unemployment and no assets. The court denied the application without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff's lack of reported monthly expenses suggested an ability to pay the filing fee, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee within 30 days or face dismissal.

What the court decided	The model
Denial of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis “The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Application.”	disagree with court · fact finding unsupported The court's reasoning is questionable because it relies on the absence of reported expenses to infer an ability to pay, which is not a standard requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute requires an affidavit showing inability to pay; it does not require a detailed budget of expenses, nor does it allow a court to deny IFP status solely because an applicant fails to list expenses, especially when the applicant has stated they have no assets and minimal income. The court's inference that 'lack of expenses suggests... ability to pay' is not supported by the cited authorities or the statutory text, which focuses on the inability to pay the fee while maintaining necessities of life. A person with $250/month income and $0 assets is generally presumed unable to pay the filing fee without further inquiry into their actual living arrangements (e.g., living with family), which the court did not explore.
Order to Pay Filing Fee within 30 Days “The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the requisite fee within 30 days of the date of this Order or her case may be dismissed.”	unsure This order is a procedural consequence of the denial of IFP status. While the court has discretion to set a deadline for payment, the underlying denial was flawed. If the IFP denial is reversed on appeal, this order would also be vacated. However, as a standalone procedural step following a denial, it is standard practice, though its validity is contingent on the correctness of the IFP denial.

What the court decided

The model

Denial of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

“The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Application.”

disagree with court · fact finding unsupported
The court's reasoning is questionable because it relies on the absence of reported expenses to infer an ability to pay, which is not a standard requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute requires an affidavit showing inability to pay; it does not require a detailed budget of expenses, nor does it allow a court to deny IFP status solely because an applicant fails to list expenses, especially when the applicant has stated they have no assets and minimal income. The court's inference that 'lack of expenses suggests... ability to pay' is not supported by the cited authorities or the statutory text, which focuses on the inability to pay the fee while maintaining necessities of life. A person with $250/month income and $0 assets is generally presumed unable to pay the filing fee without further inquiry into their actual living arrangements (e.g., living with family), which the court did not explore.

Order to Pay Filing Fee within 30 Days

“The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the requisite fee within 30 days of the date of this Order or her case may be dismissed.”

unsure
This order is a procedural consequence of the denial of IFP status. While the court has discretion to set a deadline for payment, the underlying denial was flawed. If the IFP denial is reversed on appeal, this order would also be vacated. However, as a standalone procedural step following a denial, it is standard practice, though its validity is contingent on the correctness of the IFP denial.

The order itself: questionable — The order is questionable because it imposes a requirement (demonstrating lack of expenses) that is not found in the statute or the cited case law. The court cites McQuade for the requirement of 'particularity' but then uses the *absence* of expense details to deny the motion, which is a logical non sequitur. The statute focuses on the inability to pay, not the accounting of where the money goes. The court fails to address whether the plaintiff's stated income and lack of assets are sufficient to show inability to pay, which is the core legal question.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAUREN S., Case No.: 23-cv-370-MMA (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 3] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lauren S.’s Application to Proceed In Forma 21 Pauperis. Doc. No. 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 22 Application. 23 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if 24 the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 25 inability to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the 26 facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” 27 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotations 28 omitted). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins 1 ||v. □□□ DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-340 (1948). An affidavit is 2 || sufficient if it shows that the applicant cannot pay the fee “‘and still be able to provide 3 || himself [or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” /d. (internal quotations 4 || omitted). 5 Plaintiffs is unemployed and receives a monthly income of $250 from public- 6 |/assistance. See Doc. No. 3 at 2. Plaintiff has $0 in cash and no checking or savings 7 |;accounts. /d. at 2. Plaintiff has no assets. /d. at 3. Plaintiff also has no monthly 8 ||expenses. /d. at 4-5. Plaintiffs lack of expenses suggests Plaintiff may have the ability 9 pay the required filing fee. 10 Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot find Plaintiff is entitled to in forma 11 || pauperis status. The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 12 || Application. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the requisite fee within 30 days of the 13 || date of this Order or her case may be dismissed. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 22, 2023 16 WMaitel Wu - Lighter 17 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28