Smith v. Kijakazi

S.D. California

Smith v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 1, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-00184·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] Defendant. On January 31, 2023, Jeremy S. (“Plaintiff”) filed this Social Security appeal pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (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. 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, despite plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff 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 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). Here, Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff does not work, and he is homeless (ECF No. 2 at 2, 5). Plaintiff receives monthly income of $280 from food stamps, and $522 in public-assistance. (/d.). He has no assets, and he maintains no checking or savings account. (Ud. at 2, 3). Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339-40. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed Dated: February 1, 2023 Mitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 2] Defendant. On January 31, 2023, Jeremy S. (“Plaintiff”) filed this Social Security appeal pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (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. 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, despite plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff 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 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). Here, Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff does not work, and he is homeless (ECF No. 2 at 2, 5). Plaintiff receives monthly income of $280 from food stamps, and $522 in public-assistance. (/d.). He has no assets, and he maintains no checking or savings account. (Ud. at 2, 3). Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339-40. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed Dated: February 1, 2023 Mitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge

Smith v. Kijakazi, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Smith v. Kijakazi (Smith v. Kijakazi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related