Nolan v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and the screening of her complaint in a Social Security action. The court granted the IFP application and determined that the complaint survived screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the application to proceed in forma pauperis“Accordingly, plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. No. 2] is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute, but must allege poverty with particularity. The plaintiff's affidavit stated she was unemployed, homeless, and had no income or assets other than food stamps, which satisfies the requirement to demonstrate an inability to pay fees while affording necessities of life. |
Finding that the complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” | unsure The court reviewed the complaint and found it satisfied pleading requirements, stated a plausible claim, and was not frivolous or malicious. While the order does not detail the specific facts of the claim, the conclusion that the complaint is not frivolous or fails to state a claim is a standard judicial determination in this context. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the statutory standards for IFP status and screening. It applies the cited case law (Adkins, Escobedo, McQuade) to the specific facts of the plaintiff's affidavit (unemployed, homeless, no assets). The conclusion that the complaint survives screening is a standard procedural step, though the specific reasoning for the 'plausible claim' finding is not detailed in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE LYNN N., Case No.: 24-cv-480-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Dkt. No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff Michelle Lynn N. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 19 against the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a 20 final adverse decision of the Commissioner. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed 21 an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is presently 22 before the Court. Dkt. No. 2. 23 This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or 24 proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by 25 any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a)(1). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. 27 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n 28 affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant 1 ||cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 2 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). 3 || “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, 4 ||definiteness and certainty.” /d. (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 5 (9th Cir.1981)). 6 Here, Plaintiff avers she is unemployed and currently homeless. Dkt. No. 2 7 |jat 5. Plaintiff receives $297.00 in public assistance (food stamps) but has no other 8 ||income or assets. /d. at 1-4. Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that 9 || Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources to pay 10 || the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 11 ||No. 2] is GRANTED. 12 The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which 13 ||relief can be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a 14 ||defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Rule 2(b) of the 15 ||Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading 16 requirements for a Social Security plaintiffs complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP 17 ||SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds it 18 || satisfies all pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is neither 19 frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint survives 20 screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 21 SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: March 18, 2024 ae 23 Tbe! Lh, a 24 Hon. David D. Leshner 29 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28