Cruz v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
• Decided: May 2, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00609
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Jessie C.,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:22-cv-00609-SRU

v.

Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. May 2, 2022

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The plaintiff, Jessie C.,1 has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis – in other words, she has asked the Court for permission to start a civil case without paying the customary filing fee. A federal law permits her to do so if, among other things, she submits an affidavit listing her assets and showing that she is unable to pay the fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To qualify for in forma pauperis status, the plaintiff does not have to demonstrate absolute destitution, see Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam), but she does need to show that “paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship.” Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007). Put differently, a “sufficient” in forma pauperis application is one that demonstrates that the plaintiff “cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide [her]self and [her] dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

1 Pursuant to Chief Judge Underhill’s January 8, 2021 Standing Order, the Plaintiff will be referred to solely by first name and last initial. See Standing Order Re: Social Security Cases, No. CTAO-21-01 (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2021). In determining whether a plaintiff's financial circumstances meet these standards, courts consider not only his or her personal resources, but also the resources of persons who support her. See, e.g., Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with the necessities of life, such as from

a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next friend.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Monti v. McKeon, 600 F. Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984), aff'd, 788 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1985) (table decision). In other words, “[w]here a litigant is supported or assisted by another person, the Court may consider that person’s ability to pay the filing fee.” Pierre v. City of Rochester, No. 16-CV-6428 CJS, 2018 WL 10072449, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2018). In this case, the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was accompanied by a financial affidavit stating that she has not worked since 2018. (ECF No. 2.1, at 3.) Other than receiving Husky D, state health insurance, she does not indicate that she receives any income or government benefits of any kind. (Id.) Nor does she indicate that she owns any assets or bank

accounts. (Id. at 4.) Further, she has listed zero for every category of monthly obligations and expenses. (Id.) As a result, the Court lacks any information on how she supports herself. Because no one can live on no income or assets, other courts have held that these sorts of affidavits must be incomplete and, by extension, do not support in forma pauperis status. In Pierre, for example, the court denied a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis when the plaintiff “claim[ed] that he ha[d] no assets and receive[d] no support from a spouse or from any other source,” because he “offer[ed] no explanation for how he survives day-to-day or how his monthly expenses are paid.” 2018 WL 10072449, at *1. The court added that if the plaintiff indeed had no income of his own, but was relying on another person for support, he was obliged to provide a statement of that person’s resources because “a court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or next friend.” Id. (quoting Fridman, 195 F. Supp. 2d at 537)). The Court therefore orders that, by May 16, 2022, the Plaintiff must either (a) pay the filing

fee or (b) submit a revised financial affidavit that fully and candidly explains how she supports herself – and, if she receives support from another person, provide a statement of that person’s resources and ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff is respectfully advised that, if she neither pays the filing fee nor obtains leave to proceed in forma pauperis, her case may be dismissed.

/s/ Thomas O. Farrish Hon. Thomas O. Farrish United States Magistrate Judge