Moore v. Saul

Opinion

JULIE RAE M., Case No.: 20cv1608-MDD

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of FORMA PAUPERIS Social Security, Defendant. [ECF No. 2] On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff Julie Rae M. (“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 her application for Social Security Disability Benefits and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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. Plaintiff states she receives $700.00 a month in cash from “Calworks- Welfare” and $350.00 a month for food from “SNAP.” (ECF No. 2 at 1). Plaintiff also states she received $1,200.00 from a stimulus check and

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 anticipates a future stimulus check in the same amount. (/d.). Plaintiff is presently unemployed and reports having $50.00 in a checking account. (Cd. 2). Plaintiff states she pays $350.00 per month for rent, $50.00 per month for electric, and $100.00 per month on her credit cards. Ud.). Plaintiff does not list other common and regular expenses, such as food and transportation. Absent this information, it appears that Plaintiff's monthly income exceeds her expenses by at least $200.00 per month, not accounting for the monthly $350.00 Plaintiff receives for food. Without further explanation, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff has the ability to pay fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP. On or before September 3, 2020, Plaintiff must either pay the requisite filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff seeks to resubmit her request, she is directed to complete form AO (Rev. 01/15), Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form). The form can be found on the Court’s website at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/forms.aspx?list=all. Dated: August 20, 2020 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge