(SS) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMay 28, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01371

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(SS) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUNDRA PETRICE HOPKINS, No. 2:25-cv-01371 CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding through counsel. Plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis affidavit 18 in which she states that her monthly income is approximately $3,600. 19 Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $355.00 is required to commence a civil action 20 in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, a $50.00 general administrative fee for 21 civil cases must be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). The court may authorize the commencement of an 22 action “without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes 23 affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 In her application, plaintiff lists no dependents. Her annual income is approximately 25 $43,200. According to the January 2024 federal poverty guidelines issued by the U.S. 26 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a person with a yearly income of $43,200 is at 27 nearly 300% of the poverty rate. Plaintiff’s income shows that plaintiff is able to pay the filing 28 1 | fee and costs. Thus, plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigence. See Alexander v. 2 | Carson Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993); California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 3 || F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991); Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, (N.D. Cal. 1994). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 5 || pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied. Plaintiffis granted fourteen days in which to submit the 6 || appropriate fees to the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to pay the filing and 7 || general administrative fees in the amount of $405 will result in a recommendation that the instant 8 || action be dismissed without prejudice. 9 | Dated: May 28, 2025 □□ I / dip Ze 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 || 2/hopk1371.ifp.den 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUNDRA PETRICE HOPKINS, No. 2:25-cv-01371 CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding through counsel. Plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis affidavit 18 in which she states that her monthly income is approximately $3,600. 19 Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $355.00 is required to commence a civil action 20 in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, a $50.00 general administrative fee for 21 civil cases must be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). The court may authorize the commencement of an 22 action “without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes 23 affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 In her application, plaintiff lists no dependents. Her annual income is approximately 25 $43,200. According to the January 2024 federal poverty guidelines issued by the U.S. 26 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a person with a yearly income of $43,200 is at 27 nearly 300% of the poverty rate. Plaintiff’s income shows that plaintiff is able to pay the filing 28 1 | fee and costs. Thus, plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigence. See Alexander v. 2 | Carson Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993); California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 3 || F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991); Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, (N.D. Cal. 1994). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 5 || pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied. Plaintiffis granted fourteen days in which to submit the 6 || appropriate fees to the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to pay the filing and 7 || general administrative fees in the amount of $405 will result in a recommendation that the instant 8 || action be dismissed without prejudice. 9 | Dated: May 28, 2025 □□ I / dip Ze 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 || 2/hopk1371.ifp.den 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-hopkins-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack