Shotorbani v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-02174 · 2023-11-29 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Karen S. Crawford (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:44Z · confidence high

The court reviewed the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis in a Social Security action. The court granted the application, finding that the plaintiff's declaration demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee without hardship.

What the court decided	The model
Granting the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis “Plaintiff's Application is therefore GRANTED.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent. The order recites that the plaintiff submitted a declaration showing essentially no income or assets beyond public assistance sufficient for food. This satisfies the requirement that the applicant cannot pay the fee and still provide necessities of life, as established in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. The decision follows logically from the cited law and the recited facts.

What the court decided

The model

Granting the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

“Plaintiff's Application is therefore GRANTED.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent. The order recites that the plaintiff submitted a declaration showing essentially no income or assets beyond public assistance sufficient for food. This satisfies the requirement that the applicant cannot pay the fee and still provide necessities of life, as established in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. The decision follows logically from the cited law and the recited facts.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutory and case law authorities for granting in forma pauperis status. It accurately summarizes the legal standard and applies it to the specific facts recited in the declaration (no income/assets beyond public assistance). There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific, limited ruling.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHERREL S., Case No.: 23-cv-2174-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [DOC. NO. 2] 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Doc. No. 2. A court may 18 authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits 19 an affidavit, including a statement of plaintiff’s assets, showing plaintiff is unable to pay 20 the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state the facts as to [the] 21 affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. 22 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotations omitted). 23 A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. 24 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–340 (1948). An affidavit is sufficient 25 if it shows that the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself [or 26 herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 27 28 1 Here, plaintiff's application is supported by a declaration showing essentially no 2 ||income or assets beyond public assistance sufficient to provide food. The Court finds 3 ||paying the filing fee would impose a hardship on plaintiff. Plaintiff's Application is 4 || therefore GRANTED. 5 || Dated: November 29, 2023 li. 6 Ms Lie a 7 Hon. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28