Mosley v. O'Malley
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Steve B. Chu (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Sharon Mosley filed a Social Security appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court granted the motion to proceed IFP, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“Plaintiff's affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339-40. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion proceed IFP is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., which holds that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, but must show an inability to pay the fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. The plaintiff's affidavit showed income of $2,735 and expenses of $2,300, leaving a surplus of $435. However, the court found this sufficient to demonstrate inability to pay the $400 fee without sacrificing necessities. While the surplus is close to the fee amount, the court's discretion in evaluating the 'necessities of life' is generally respected, and the finding that the complaint is not subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is a separate, valid procedural step required before granting IFP status in a civil case. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the filing fee and the IFP exception. It cites the correct controlling authority (Adkins) for the substantive standard. It performs the required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to ensure the complaint is not frivolous or malicious before granting IFP status. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine IFP motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON MOSLEY, Case No.: 24cv0530-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of 15 the Social Security Administration, [ECF No. 3] Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 20, 2024, Sharon M. (“Plaintiff”) filed this Social Security appeal 19 pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the 20 denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security 21 income (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 22 (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is 23 GRANTED. 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite plaintiff’s failure to 27 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To | || proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 2 || 1965). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de 3 || Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 4 Here, Plaintiff submits an affidavit stating that she receives $535.00 a month in 5 || food stamps, and a $2,200.00 loan from her sister each month, for a total of $2,735.00 in 6 ||monthly income. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Plaintiff claims a checking/savings account with a 7 || total of $2.68, and no other assets. (/d. at 3.) For monthly average expenses, Plaintiff 8 claims a rent/home-mortgage payment of $500, food in the amount of $1,000, utilities in 9 amount of $700, and laundry in the amount of $100, for a total of $2,300 in expenses 10 month. (/d. at 4-5.) 11 Plaintiff's affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required filing 12 || fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339-40. 13 || Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject 14 || to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion 15 proceed IFP is GRANTED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: March 21, 2024 18 9 Ny F Ga. 20 Hon. SteveB.Chu 1 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28