Lawrence v. Saul

Opinion

BRETT JASON LAWRENCE, Case No.: 19-cv-1983-MDD

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of [ECF No. 3] Social Security, Defendant. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Brett Jason Lawrence (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income disability benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). As such, “the facts as to [an] affiant's poverty” must be stated “‘with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). “It is important for litigants applying to proceed without prepaying fees and costs to accurately and honestly report their income, assets, and expenses[.]” Archuleta v. Arizona, No. CV 19-05466 PHX CDB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186262, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2019). An applicant must "[c]omplete all questions" in his application and "not leave any blanks[.]" Id. Here, Plaintiff states he receives “food stamps” as his sole monthly income, but does not indicate the amount he receives in stamps. (ECF No. 3

1 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016)). The additional $50.00 2).2 Plaintiff is presently unemployed and has been unemployed for at least the past two years. Ud.). He reports not having any bank accounts, savings, assets, or liabilities, and does not expect that to change in the coming year. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff states he has no expenses of any kind, }and no persons who rely on him for support. (Ud.). Plaintiff did not provide any information that will help explain why he cannot pay the costs of these proceedings. (/d. at 5). Without further explanation, the Court cannot g determine whether Plaintiff has the ability to pay fees and costs. See Aceves v. United States, No. 18cv2380-LAB (KSC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48321, at S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019) (denying IFP where Plaintiff reported “0” or “N/A” in response to almost every question and failed to provide any information explaining his inability to pay the costs of the proceedings). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP. On or before November 20, 2019, Plaintiff must ;/either pay the requisite filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP. Dated: November 5, 2019 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge 97 2 All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF pagination, not the page number in the original document.