Al Ghalayini v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 2, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00096
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VIANNA A.G., Case No.: 23-cv-0096-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff has filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of a decision by the 19 Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 20 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) 21 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 22 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring a party instituting a civil action to 24 pay a filing fee of $350 as well as a $50 administrative fee). An action may proceed despite 25 a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which states: 27 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without 28 l prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The determination of indigency falls within the district 5 court’s discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), 6 reversed on other grounds by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). A party need not “be absolutely 7 destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 g (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 9 particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 10 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.3d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). “An 1 affidavit in support of an IFP application 1s sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot 12 || Pay the court costs and still afford the necessitates of life.” /d. “But, the same even-handed 13. must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at 14 public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially 15 able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 16 (D. R.I. 1984). 7 Based on the information provided (ECF 2), the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable 18 to pay the required filing fee. See, e.g., Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F.2d 723, 725 (1960) (“One 19 need not be absolutely destitute to obtain [the] benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.”’); 0 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235 (noting “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or 31 law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status,” but, “[w]hatever the standard, $350 is a lot of money to many millions of Americans’). Accordingly, the 3 Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2). A IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 2, 2023 □ p / / 26 on. Bernard G. Skomal 17 United States Magistrate Judge 28