Lacy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Lacy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedNovember 22, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-01908

StatusUnknown

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

Lacy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Mona Lisa Lacy, No. CV-21-01908-PHX-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 and her spouse, who reside in Arizona (Doc. 1 at 1), which is a 17 community property state, receive $6,730.00 per month in income. Additionally, they have 18 $84,763.99 in cash in their checking account. 19 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 20 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 21 court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 22 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.1960). 23 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 24 In Escobedo, the Court of Appeals suggested that only the funds left over after 25 expenses should be considered in determining whether to grant in forma pauperis status. 26 787 F.3d at 1235 (“Once her rent and debt payments were taken into account, she would 27 have had to dedicate the entirety of two-months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning 28 that she would have to forego eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing 1|| fee.”’). 2 Unlike Escobedo, here Plaintiff has almost $85,000 in her checking account, so she || would not need to save up to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 2). Further, her monthly expenses 4|| are $1,500 less than her monthly income (id.), so she could also pay the filing fee out of 5 || that surplus. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff does not qualify for in forma 6 || pauperis status. Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) 8 || is denied. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 10 days of this Order, or the Clerk of the □□ Court shall dismiss this case (without prejudice) and enter judgment accordingly. 10 Dated this 19th day of November, 2021. 11 12 a 13 14 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 15 16 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 Mona Lisa Lacy, No. CV-21-01908-PHX-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 and her spouse, who reside in Arizona (Doc. 1 at 1), which is a 17 community property state, receive $6,730.00 per month in income. Additionally, they have 18 $84,763.99 in cash in their checking account. 19 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 20 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 21 court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 22 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.1960). 23 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 24 In Escobedo, the Court of Appeals suggested that only the funds left over after 25 expenses should be considered in determining whether to grant in forma pauperis status. 26 787 F.3d at 1235 (“Once her rent and debt payments were taken into account, she would 27 have had to dedicate the entirety of two-months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning 28 that she would have to forego eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing 1|| fee.”’). 2 Unlike Escobedo, here Plaintiff has almost $85,000 in her checking account, so she || would not need to save up to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 2). Further, her monthly expenses 4|| are $1,500 less than her monthly income (id.), so she could also pay the filing fee out of 5 || that surplus. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff does not qualify for in forma 6 || pauperis status. Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) 8 || is denied. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 10 days of this Order, or the Clerk of the □□ Court shall dismiss this case (without prejudice) and enter judgment accordingly. 10 Dated this 19th day of November, 2021. 11 12 a 13 14 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lacy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacy-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack