Coward v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Coward v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 30, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-08016

StatusUnknown

This text of Coward v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Coward v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coward v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 William Reynolds Coward, No. CV-23-08016-PCT-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 (Doc. 2). Plaintiff earns $1,411.00 per month in retirement benefits. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 17 spouse earns $3,360.00 per month in income. 1 (Id.) They appear to share expenses, with 18 Plaintiff paying for housing and Plaintiff’s spouse paying for most other necessities. (Id.) 19 Their combined total month expenses equal $2,469.50. (Id.) Their combine monthly 20 income is $4,771.00. (Id.) Thus, they have $2,301.50 in disposable income per month 21 after paying all expenses. (Id.) 22 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has discussed when a district court should grant 23 in forma pauperis status: 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff may commence an action without paying the filing fees where she submits an affidavit stating that she 25 lacks sufficient funds and where her suit is not frivolous or malicious. [footnote omitted] Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir.1984). 26 An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 27 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that whether spousal income may be 28 considering in the ability to pay inquiry is a fact question based on a particular plaintiff’s circumstances. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015). 1 life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets. As this 2 court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 3 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 4 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 bas As noted above, there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or 6 case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status. 7|| Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234-36 (9th Cir. 2015). The court of appeals 8 || noted in its analysis: “Once [Escobedo’s] rent and debt payments were taken into account, she would have had to dedicate the entirety of two-months’ worth of her remaining funds, 10 || meaning that she would have to forego eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the 11 || filing fee.” Jd. at 1235. 12 Here, unlike Escobedo, Plaintiff can pay the $402.00 filing fee out of disposable || income without forgoing paying any expenses. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff does not || qualify for in forma pauperis status. 15 Therefore, 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) 17 || is denied. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee within 14 days of this Order, the Clerk of 18 || the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, and enter judgment accordingly. 19 Dated this 30th day of January, 2023. 20 21 □ 22 James A. Teilborg 23 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 William Reynolds Coward, No. CV-23-08016-PCT-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 (Doc. 2). Plaintiff earns $1,411.00 per month in retirement benefits. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 17 spouse earns $3,360.00 per month in income. 1 (Id.) They appear to share expenses, with 18 Plaintiff paying for housing and Plaintiff’s spouse paying for most other necessities. (Id.) 19 Their combined total month expenses equal $2,469.50. (Id.) Their combine monthly 20 income is $4,771.00. (Id.) Thus, they have $2,301.50 in disposable income per month 21 after paying all expenses. (Id.) 22 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has discussed when a district court should grant 23 in forma pauperis status: 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff may commence an action without paying the filing fees where she submits an affidavit stating that she 25 lacks sufficient funds and where her suit is not frivolous or malicious. [footnote omitted] Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir.1984). 26 An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 27 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that whether spousal income may be 28 considering in the ability to pay inquiry is a fact question based on a particular plaintiff’s circumstances. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015). 1 life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets. As this 2 court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 3 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 4 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 bas As noted above, there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or 6 case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status. 7|| Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234-36 (9th Cir. 2015). The court of appeals 8 || noted in its analysis: “Once [Escobedo’s] rent and debt payments were taken into account, she would have had to dedicate the entirety of two-months’ worth of her remaining funds, 10 || meaning that she would have to forego eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the 11 || filing fee.” Jd. at 1235. 12 Here, unlike Escobedo, Plaintiff can pay the $402.00 filing fee out of disposable || income without forgoing paying any expenses. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff does not || qualify for in forma pauperis status. 15 Therefore, 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) 17 || is denied. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee within 14 days of this Order, the Clerk of 18 || the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, and enter judgment accordingly. 19 Dated this 30th day of January, 2023. 20 21 □ 22 James A. Teilborg 23 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coward v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coward-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack