Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Teresa M. C. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action challenging the denial of her Social Security benefits. The Court granted the application, finding that Plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee while maintaining the necessities of life.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).“The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’ s IFP Application.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the Ninth Circuit's requirement that the affidavit show the plaintiff cannot pay the fee and still provide for the necessities of life. The recited facts (income of $3,582/month, expenses of $3,206/month, limited assets) support the conclusion that Plaintiff lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee without compromising her ability to provide for herself and her dependents. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutory and case law authorities for granting IFP status. It accurately recites the financial facts from the affidavit and applies the 'necessities of life' standard to conclude that the plaintiff is indigent. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERESA M. C., Case No.: 23-cv-01588-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 2] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Teresa M. C.’s Application to Proceed with her 18 Complaint in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. 19 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if 20 the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all her assets, showing she is 21 unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as 22 to [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States 23 v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotations omitted). An affidavit 24 is sufficient if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself 25 [or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. California Men’s 26 Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (internal quotations 27 omitted). 28 1 Plaintiff is challenging the denial of her application for Social Security Supplemental 2 ||Security Income benefits and Disability Benefits. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff is unemployed and 3 no checking or savings account. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff otherwise has limited income 4 || and assets. /d. Her application states she receives $1969 per month in adoption assistance 5 $1613 monthly for foster care. Jd. at 1-2. Plaintiff lists a 2005 Dodge Durango as her 6 |/only asset. Jd. at 3. Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $3206. /d. at 4. After Plaintiff’s total 7 ||}expenses, she has approximately $376.00 remaining for any additional expenses she, her 8 || child, or foster child incur. 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown she lacks the 10 || financial resources to pay for her filing fee. The Court, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff’ s IFP 11 || Application. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: October 5, 2023 Sudo WA, Honorable Daniel E. Butcher 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28