Kepa v. O'Malley

D. Hawaii

Kepa v. O'Malley

DecidedJanuary 16, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00016

StatusUnknown

This text of Kepa v. O'Malley (Kepa v. O'Malley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kepa v. O'Malley, (D. Haw. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

WILLIAM NAPUAOKALANI KEPA, Case No. 24-cv-00016-DKW-RT

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS1 Defendant.

Plaintiff William Napuaokalani Kepa, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in this appeal of a decision by the Social Security Administration (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3. Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that demonstrates an inability to pay. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). While Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the applicant

1The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c). must nonetheless show that he is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Kepa has made the required showing under Section 1915(a). In the IFP Application, Kepa states that he receives no pay or wages. He further states that he receives no other income, except for $469 per month in “State of Hawaii welfare financial disability....” Kepa also states that he has no money in a checking or savings account, and he has no other assets of value. Kepa asserts that he has monthly expenses of roughly $460 and is unable to contribute support to his two dependent-daughters due to a lack of income. In light of these figures, Kepa’s income falls below the poverty threshold identified by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (““HHS”’) 2024 Poverty Guidelines. See HHS Poverty Guidelines, available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. In addition, Kepa has insufficient assets to provide security for the $405 filing fee. As a result, the Court GRANTS the IFP Application, Dkt. No. 3.’ IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘1. Bien mS Derrick K. Watson MS Chief United States District Judge Because Rule 3 of the recently enacted Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions provides that a plaintiff is not required to serve a summons and complaint in a social security action, it is unnecessary for the Court to direct service of the Complaint in this case.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

WILLIAM NAPUAOKALANI KEPA, Case No. 24-cv-00016-DKW-RT

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS1 Defendant.

Plaintiff William Napuaokalani Kepa, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in this appeal of a decision by the Social Security Administration (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3. Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that demonstrates an inability to pay. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). While Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the applicant

1The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c). must nonetheless show that he is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Kepa has made the required showing under Section 1915(a). In the IFP Application, Kepa states that he receives no pay or wages. He further states that he receives no other income, except for $469 per month in “State of Hawaii welfare financial disability....” Kepa also states that he has no money in a checking or savings account, and he has no other assets of value. Kepa asserts that he has monthly expenses of roughly $460 and is unable to contribute support to his two dependent-daughters due to a lack of income. In light of these figures, Kepa’s income falls below the poverty threshold identified by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (““HHS”’) 2024 Poverty Guidelines. See HHS Poverty Guidelines, available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. In addition, Kepa has insufficient assets to provide security for the $405 filing fee. As a result, the Court GRANTS the IFP Application, Dkt. No. 3.’ IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘1. Bien mS Derrick K. Watson MS Chief United States District Judge Because Rule 3 of the recently enacted Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions provides that a plaintiff is not required to serve a summons and complaint in a social security action, it is unnecessary for the Court to direct service of the Complaint in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kepa v. O'Malley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kepa-v-omalley-hid-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack