Hurtado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Hurtado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedFebruary 23, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00342

StatusUnknown

This text of Hurtado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Hurtado 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

Hurtado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Consuelo Hurtado, No. CV-24-00342-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The 16 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has discussed when a district court should grant in forma 17 pauperis status: 18 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 19 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). 20 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 21 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 22 court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 23 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 24 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). 25 … As noted above, there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or 26 case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status. 27 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234-36 (9th Cir. 2015). 28 The Court of Appeals noted in its analysis: “Once [Escobedo’s] rent and debt 1 || payments were taken into account, she would have had to dedicate the entirety of two- 2|| months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning that she would have to forego eating during || those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee.” Jd. at 1235. 4 Here, Plaintiffs income is $2,550.00 per month. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff's monthly expenses including food, housing and transportation are $1,555.00. (/d.). Thus, Plaintiff 6|| has $1000.00 per month of disposable income which the Court finds is sufficient to pay the 7\| filing fee. Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 14 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice. 12 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2024. 13 14 a 3 15 16 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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 Consuelo Hurtado, No. CV-24-00342-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The 16 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has discussed when a district court should grant in forma 17 pauperis status: 18 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 19 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). 20 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 21 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 22 court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 23 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 24 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). 25 … As noted above, there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or 26 case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status. 27 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234-36 (9th Cir. 2015). 28 The Court of Appeals noted in its analysis: “Once [Escobedo’s] rent and debt 1 || payments were taken into account, she would have had to dedicate the entirety of two- 2|| months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning that she would have to forego eating during || those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee.” Jd. at 1235. 4 Here, Plaintiffs income is $2,550.00 per month. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff's monthly expenses including food, housing and transportation are $1,555.00. (/d.). Thus, Plaintiff 6|| has $1000.00 per month of disposable income which the Court finds is sufficient to pay the 7\| filing fee. Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 14 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice. 12 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2024. 13 14 a 3 15 16 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hurtado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurtado-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack