Lozada v. Saul

Opinion

RORY L., Case No.: 20cv1499-MDD

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of

Social Security, (ECF No. 2) Defendant.

On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff Rory L. (“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 Plaintiff’s 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. 2). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. DISCUSSION 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. Plaintiff receives $2,000.00 a month in income and has a checking account with $100.00 in it. (ECF No. 2 at 1-2). Additionally, Plaintiff owns a vehicle valued at $5,000.00, but still owes $2,000.00 on it. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff

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 reports $4,750.00 in monthly expenses. (/d. at 4). Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action because his expenses exceed his income. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dated: August 4, 2020 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge