Boudreaux v. Saul

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00274
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN BYRON BOUDREAUX., Case No.: 20cv274 BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP

14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security [ECF 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff John B. filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the Social Security 19 Administration’s denial of Plaintiff’s disability claim and a Motion for Leave to Proceed 20 in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF 1, 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP with leave to pay the filing fee within 30 22 days. 23 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize a plaintiff to pursue a case 24 without payment of the filing fee. Whether an affiant has satisfied § 1915(a) falls within 25 “the reviewing court[‘s] . . . sound discretion.” California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 26 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). A party 27 need not “be absolutely destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 28 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege 1 || poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 2 || 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 f.3D 938, 940 3 || (9th Cir. 1981). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 4 alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessitates of life.” 5 ||/d. “But, the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are 6 || not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the 7 ||remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” 8 || Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D. R.I.) 9 Here, the IFP application indicates Plaintiff’s average income over the past twelve 10 || months is $5,002.70 per month and that is expected to continue. (ECF 2 at 1-2.) His 11 monthly debts and obligations are listed as $5,406, including $339 per month for 12 recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. 13 Based on this information, the Court cannot find Plaintiff has shown he cannot pay 14 || the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. Although the application reflects 15 || Plaintiff is spending more that he is receiving in income monthly, the Court would be 16 || hard pressed to find someone receiving more than $5,000 a month in income should be 17 || allowed to proceed at public expense. Additionally, Plaintiffs debts and obligations 18 include at least one item that is not a necessity of life and could be foregone or reduced to 19 || pay the filing fee. 20 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. 22 2. Plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date this Order is docketed to pay the 23 filing fee. 24 Dated: April 10, 2020 7 2 p / / 25 on. Bernard G. Skomal 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28