De Laloe v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. California

De Laloe v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 6, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01877

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

De Laloe v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEGAN D., Case No.: 25-cv-01877-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL PAUPERIS SECURITY, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 16 17 Plaintiff Megan D. (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Complaint against the Commissioner of 18 Social Security (the “Commissioner”) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final 19 decision denying her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and 20 supplemental security income benefits. (See ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 21 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (ECF No. 2.) For the 22 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP 23 Motion. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite 27 a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 1 Section 1915(a)(1) provides that: 2 any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or 3 security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a 4 statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 5 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 7 assets to warrant IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s 8 discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 9 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 10 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other 11 grounds by 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 12 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 13 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. 14 Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely 15 destitute to obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 16 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with 17 some particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (internal 18 quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Here, Plaintiff has not paid the $4051 filing fee required to maintain a civil action in 21 this District and has instead moved to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff attests to the 22 following under penalty of perjury in her affidavit of assets: Plaintiff, an unmarried woman, 23 anticipates gross income of $3,200 next month from her employment, which will amount 24 25 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“The clerk of each district court shall require the parties 26 instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court . . . to pay a filing fee of 27 $350[.]”); CASD Fee Schedules, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/attorney/ CASD%20FEE%20SCHEDULE.pdf) (imposing a $55 administrative fee for a civil action, 28 1 $2,340 after deductions, including insurance. (/d. at 1-2.) Plaintiff is currently 2 ||employed by Bob Jenson Heating and Air Conditioning. (Ud. at 2.) Plaintiff owns two 3 || vehicles, including a 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier valued at $1,500, and a 2024 Kia Soul valued 4 ||at $18,000. (d. at 3.) Plaintiff spends $1,825 per month on rent, utilities, and food. (/d. 5 4.) She spends an additional $350 per month on medical and dental expenses, and $950 6 || per month on transportation, car insurance, and car payments. (/d.) Lastly, she spends $95 7 || per month on other basic living essentials. (/d. at 5.) Plaintiff attests that her expenses far 8 ||exceed her income, and she must manipulate due dates or fall behind on expenses to keep 9 || utilities and services active. (/d.) 10 Based on the foregoing, it appears that Plaintiff can pay the court costs and still 11 || afford the necessities of life. Plaintiff is unmarried without any named dependents but 12 ||owns two vehicles, including a brand new 2024 Kia Soul. Plaintiff spends nearly half of 13 || her income on her vehicles and transportation. Moreover, despite having health insurance 14 || deducted from her paycheck, Plaintiff also claims to spend $350 per month in medical and 15 ||dental expenses. Without sufficient information to assess these expenditures, the Court 16 ||}denies Plaintiff's IFP Motion without prejudice. Plaintiff shall attach supporting 17 ||documentation regarding these mandatory monthly expenditures to any renewed IFP 18 || Motion. 19 || I. CONCLUSION 20 For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff's IFP Motion (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 21 || without prejudice. On or before August 22, 2025, Plaintiff must either (1) file a renewed 22 ||motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or (2) pay the requisite filing fee, otherwise 23 || her case may be dismissed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 6, 2025 - 26 Balladt n. Jill L. Burkhardt 27 ited States Magistrate Judge 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEGAN D., Case No.: 25-cv-01877-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL PAUPERIS SECURITY, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 16 17 Plaintiff Megan D. (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Complaint against the Commissioner of 18 Social Security (the “Commissioner”) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final 19 decision denying her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and 20 supplemental security income benefits. (See ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 21 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (ECF No. 2.) For the 22 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP 23 Motion. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite 27 a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 1 Section 1915(a)(1) provides that: 2 any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or 3 security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a 4 statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 5 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 7 assets to warrant IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s 8 discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 9 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 10 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other 11 grounds by 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 12 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 13 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. 14 Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely 15 destitute to obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 16 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with 17 some particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (internal 18 quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Here, Plaintiff has not paid the $4051 filing fee required to maintain a civil action in 21 this District and has instead moved to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff attests to the 22 following under penalty of perjury in her affidavit of assets: Plaintiff, an unmarried woman, 23 anticipates gross income of $3,200 next month from her employment, which will amount 24 25 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“The clerk of each district court shall require the parties 26 instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court . . . to pay a filing fee of 27 $350[.]”); CASD Fee Schedules, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/attorney/ CASD%20FEE%20SCHEDULE.pdf) (imposing a $55 administrative fee for a civil action, 28 1 $2,340 after deductions, including insurance. (/d. at 1-2.) Plaintiff is currently 2 ||employed by Bob Jenson Heating and Air Conditioning. (Ud. at 2.) Plaintiff owns two 3 || vehicles, including a 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier valued at $1,500, and a 2024 Kia Soul valued 4 ||at $18,000. (d. at 3.) Plaintiff spends $1,825 per month on rent, utilities, and food. (/d. 5 4.) She spends an additional $350 per month on medical and dental expenses, and $950 6 || per month on transportation, car insurance, and car payments. (/d.) Lastly, she spends $95 7 || per month on other basic living essentials. (/d. at 5.) Plaintiff attests that her expenses far 8 ||exceed her income, and she must manipulate due dates or fall behind on expenses to keep 9 || utilities and services active. (/d.) 10 Based on the foregoing, it appears that Plaintiff can pay the court costs and still 11 || afford the necessities of life. Plaintiff is unmarried without any named dependents but 12 ||owns two vehicles, including a brand new 2024 Kia Soul. Plaintiff spends nearly half of 13 || her income on her vehicles and transportation. Moreover, despite having health insurance 14 || deducted from her paycheck, Plaintiff also claims to spend $350 per month in medical and 15 ||dental expenses. Without sufficient information to assess these expenditures, the Court 16 ||}denies Plaintiff's IFP Motion without prejudice. Plaintiff shall attach supporting 17 ||documentation regarding these mandatory monthly expenditures to any renewed IFP 18 || Motion. 19 || I. CONCLUSION 20 For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff's IFP Motion (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 21 || without prejudice. On or before August 22, 2025, Plaintiff must either (1) file a renewed 22 ||motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or (2) pay the requisite filing fee, otherwise 23 || her case may be dismissed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 6, 2025 - 26 Balladt n. Jill L. Burkhardt 27 ited States Magistrate Judge 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

De Laloe v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-laloe-v-commissioner-of-social-security-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack