Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedAugust 14, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00457

StatusUnknown

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

Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Morgan Matchett, No. CV-25-00457-TUC-LCK

10 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP). 16 (Doc. 2.) Because there is not, and absent the Defendant’s appearance cannot be, full 17 consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case, the assigned Magistrate Judge submits 18 a Report and Recommendation to Senior District Judge Raner C. Collins. Gen. Ord. 21-25. 19 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the 20 record, deny the Motion and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or her case will be 21 dismissed. 22 In her application, Plaintiff indicates that she has monthly income of $2292, 23 although some of that income is not being paid due to pending litigation. (Doc. 2 at 2, 5.) 24 Her husband’s monthly income is $9853 per month. (Doc. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff states that she 25 has close to $3000 in the bank and her husband has approximately $5000 in the bank, and 26 this money is earmarked for bills. (Id. at 2, 5.) She and/or her spouse own a home worth 27 over $300,000, a second piece of real estate worth $65,000 (which provides rental income), 28 and two cars worth $9800 and $4800. (Id. at 3.) They have a college-aged daughter and 1 high school-aged daughter that rely on them for support. (Id. at 3.) Their monthly expenses 2 exceed their income by more than $2000 per month. (Id. at 2, 5.) 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff may file an action without paying the 4 filing fee if she submits an affidavit stating that she lacks sufficient funds, and if her suit is 5 not frivolous or malicious. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir. 1984). A 6 plaintiff’s affidavit is sufficient to support her application when “it alleges that the affiant 7 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 8 787 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 9 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). To obtain IFP status, the plaintiff “must allege poverty ‘with some 10 particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 11 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Ninth Circuit has directed that an IFP application should not 12 be denied based on the financial resources of a spouse unless those resources are available 13 to the plaintiff and the spouse has sufficient funds to assist in paying the fee. Id. 14 The Court finds it evident from the affidavit that Plaintiff’s spouse shares his income 15 with his wife and family. He is listed as the sole person paying the mortgage, home 16 maintenance, and food costs for the household, while some other expenses are split. (Doc. 17 2 at 4.) When Plaintiff indicated that money in the bank was for bills, she did not distinguish 18 between money in her account and that in her husband’s account. (Id. at 2, 5.) Therefore, 19 the Court considers the husband’s income and bank account when evaluating Plaintiff’s 20 motion. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1236 (finding that when spouses share incomes, a court 21 could consider a spouse’s income when ruling on an IFP application). 22 Taking Plaintiff’s contested income out of consideration, Plaintiff indicated that she 23 and her spouse have income amounting to more than $130,000 per year. While subject to 24 a mortgage, she and her husband own a home, a second inherited property, and two 25 vehicles. It appears they spend more than their income on a monthly basis and pay a 26 substantial amount on credit cards each month, but they do have some funds in the bank. 27 (Doc. 2 at 2, 4.) Given the level of assets Plaintiff and her spouse possess, the Court finds 28 that Plaintiff has not established her poverty with certainty or that she will not be able to 1|| afford the necessities of life if she is required to pay the $405 filing fee. 2 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court || enter an order denying Plaintiff's Motion for In Forma Pauperis Status (Doc. 2) and 4|| directing her to pay the filing fee or her Complaint will be subject to dismissal. Pursuant to 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), Plaintiff may serve and file written objections || within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If 7\| objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 8 Dated this 14th day of August, 2025. 9 10 ‘ ; Lifaaiell 0. Appr — onorable Lynnette C. Kimmins 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

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

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

9 Morgan Matchett, No. CV-25-00457-TUC-LCK

10 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP). 16 (Doc. 2.) Because there is not, and absent the Defendant’s appearance cannot be, full 17 consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case, the assigned Magistrate Judge submits 18 a Report and Recommendation to Senior District Judge Raner C. Collins. Gen. Ord. 21-25. 19 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the 20 record, deny the Motion and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or her case will be 21 dismissed. 22 In her application, Plaintiff indicates that she has monthly income of $2292, 23 although some of that income is not being paid due to pending litigation. (Doc. 2 at 2, 5.) 24 Her husband’s monthly income is $9853 per month. (Doc. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff states that she 25 has close to $3000 in the bank and her husband has approximately $5000 in the bank, and 26 this money is earmarked for bills. (Id. at 2, 5.) She and/or her spouse own a home worth 27 over $300,000, a second piece of real estate worth $65,000 (which provides rental income), 28 and two cars worth $9800 and $4800. (Id. at 3.) They have a college-aged daughter and 1 high school-aged daughter that rely on them for support. (Id. at 3.) Their monthly expenses 2 exceed their income by more than $2000 per month. (Id. at 2, 5.) 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff may file an action without paying the 4 filing fee if she submits an affidavit stating that she lacks sufficient funds, and if her suit is 5 not frivolous or malicious. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir. 1984). A 6 plaintiff’s affidavit is sufficient to support her application when “it alleges that the affiant 7 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 8 787 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 9 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). To obtain IFP status, the plaintiff “must allege poverty ‘with some 10 particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 11 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Ninth Circuit has directed that an IFP application should not 12 be denied based on the financial resources of a spouse unless those resources are available 13 to the plaintiff and the spouse has sufficient funds to assist in paying the fee. Id. 14 The Court finds it evident from the affidavit that Plaintiff’s spouse shares his income 15 with his wife and family. He is listed as the sole person paying the mortgage, home 16 maintenance, and food costs for the household, while some other expenses are split. (Doc. 17 2 at 4.) When Plaintiff indicated that money in the bank was for bills, she did not distinguish 18 between money in her account and that in her husband’s account. (Id. at 2, 5.) Therefore, 19 the Court considers the husband’s income and bank account when evaluating Plaintiff’s 20 motion. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1236 (finding that when spouses share incomes, a court 21 could consider a spouse’s income when ruling on an IFP application). 22 Taking Plaintiff’s contested income out of consideration, Plaintiff indicated that she 23 and her spouse have income amounting to more than $130,000 per year. While subject to 24 a mortgage, she and her husband own a home, a second inherited property, and two 25 vehicles. It appears they spend more than their income on a monthly basis and pay a 26 substantial amount on credit cards each month, but they do have some funds in the bank. 27 (Doc. 2 at 2, 4.) Given the level of assets Plaintiff and her spouse possess, the Court finds 28 that Plaintiff has not established her poverty with certainty or that she will not be able to 1|| afford the necessities of life if she is required to pay the $405 filing fee. 2 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court || enter an order denying Plaintiff's Motion for In Forma Pauperis Status (Doc. 2) and 4|| directing her to pay the filing fee or her Complaint will be subject to dismissal. Pursuant to 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), Plaintiff may serve and file written objections || within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If 7\| objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 8 Dated this 14th day of August, 2025. 9 10 ‘ ; Lifaaiell 0. Appr — onorable Lynnette C. Kimmins 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matchett-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack