(SS) K.T. v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMay 17, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00864
StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) K.T. v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) K.T. 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) K.T. v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 K.T., No. 2:23-cv-00864 CKD (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Stephanie Spivey, proceeding through counsel and on behalf of a minor, K.T., 19 has filed an appeal of a Social Security benefits decision along with an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis affidavit stating that 21 her gross monthly wages are $9,239.60 and that she receives an additional $1,700.00 in disability 22 benefits for family members. 23 Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action 24 in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, a $52.00 general administrative fee for 25 civil cases must be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). The court may authorize the commencement of an 26 action “without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes 27 affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 28 Here, plaintiff’s household income shows that plaintiff is able to pay the filing fee and 1 | costs. Thus, plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigence. See Alexander v. Carson 2 | Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993); California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 3 || 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 $402 will result in a recommendation that the instant 8 || action be dismissed without prejudice. 9 | Dated: May 16, 2023 □□ I / dip Ze 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 || 2/kt0864..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

Related

R.E. Dietz Corporation v. United States
939 F.2d 1 (Second Circuit, 1991)
Stehouwer v. Hennessey
841 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. California, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(SS) K.T. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-kt-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2023.