Smith v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JEREMY S., Case No.: 23cv0184-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN 14 FORMA PAUPERIS KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

15 Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] 16 Defendant. 17 18 On January 31, 2023, Jeremy S. (“Plaintiff”) filed this Social Security 19 appeal pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 20 405(g), challenging the denial of his application for Social Security Disability 21 Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff 22 simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 23 2). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 24 proceed IFP. 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 26 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 1 ||despite plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 2 || granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez 3 ||v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege 4 a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need 5 ||not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours 6 || & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 7 Here, Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees 8 ||or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff does not work, 9 ||and he is homeless (ECF No. 2 at 2, 5). Plaintiff receives monthly income of 10 || $280 from food stamps, and $522 in public-assistance. (/d.). He has no assets, 11 ||and he maintains no checking or savings account. (Ud. at 2, 3). 12 Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the 13 ||required filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 14 || U.S. at 339-40. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and 15 concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2023 Mitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27