Calles v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Christina S. C. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a Social Security disability case. The court granted the application, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay court fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) granted“Accordingly, plaintiffs 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). The plaintiff's affidavit alleged specific financial details (low income, no assets, no employment) sufficient to show she could not pay fees while maintaining necessities of life. The decision follows from the law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutory and case law authorities for granting IFP status in the Ninth Circuit. It accurately recites the plaintiff's financial situation and applies the 'necessities of life' standard. 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 CHRISTINA S. C., Case No.: 24-cv-84-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff Christina S. C. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 19 against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a final 20 decision denying her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and 21 Supplemental Security Income benefits for lack of disability. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff 22 concurrently filed an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 23 which is presently before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 24 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or 25 proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by 26 any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(a)(1). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. 28 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n 1 || affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant 2 ||cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 3 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). 4 plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, 5 || definiteness and certainty.” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 6 (9th Cir.1981)). Plaintiff reports a total monthly income of $481.00, consisting of $291.00 in 8 ||in food stamps and the remaining $190.00 described as “help from family.” Dkt. 9 ||No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff has not been employed since 2018, does not own a home or 10 ||vehicle, and has no savings. /d. at 2-3. She lives with a family member who 11 || provides for her “basic necessities.” /d. at 5. 12 Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately 13 ||demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee. 14 ||Accordingly, plaintiffs Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is 15 || GRANTED. 16 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: January 24, 2024 ae 18 Tbe! lib a Hon. DavidD.Leshner SSCS 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28