(SS) Metzger v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PATRICIA METZGER, Case No. 2:25-cv-01551-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY SECURITY, 15 (ECF No. 2) Defendant. 16 17 Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Patricia Metzger’s motion for leave 18 to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of 19 an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such 20 fees).1 (ECF No. 2.) 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 22 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 23 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 24 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 25 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 26

27 1 Actions involving review of Social Security decisions are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15). 28 1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 In Escobedo, the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP 3 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still 4 afford the necessities of life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits 5 of the in forma pauperis statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must 6 allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the 7 United States Department of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline 8 for a household of one (not residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,650.00. See U.S. Dpt. 9 Health & Human Service (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates her son pays $1,150 per month for “space rent” 11 for her mobile home and $1,500 per month for her food and groceries, i.e. she receives 12 $31,800 in funds from her son each year. (See ECF No. 2). Plaintiff states she has 13 $1,000 in liquid assets, and has a credit card with an outstanding balance of $10,000. Id. 14 Plaintiff does not list any other expenses except for her rent, food and groceries. 15 Thus, Plaintiff is receiving about $31,800 per year, which is close to double the 16 2024 poverty guideline and covers all of Plaintiff’s expenses, while also leaving funds 17 available to pay the one-time $405 in court costs associated with filing this action. Given 18 this, the Court cannot find Plaintiff unable to pay. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 19 While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s situation, she is not indigent and numerous 20 litigants in this court have significant monthly expenditures. Thus, the Court recommends 21 Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) 22 (absent consent of all parties, magistrate judge lacks authority to issue dispositive order 23 denying in forma pauperis status). 24 Presently, a filing fee of $405.00 is required to commence a civil action in this 25 court. In recognition of Plaintiff’s financial resources, the Court finds it appropriate to 26 allow for monthly payments of a minimum of $25.00 until the full filing fee is satisfied. 27 The undersigned recommends that, upon receipt of the first installment from Plaintiff, the 28 Clerk of the Court be allowed to issue the appropriate service orders. 1 Accordingly, the undersigned ORDERS the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 2 || district judge to this action. Further the undersigned RECOMMENDS: 3 1. Plaintiff's IFP request (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; 4 2. Plaintiff be granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $25 monthly installments, 5 beginning within 14 days of the district court's decision of these findings and 6 recommendations and due on the first of each month thereafter, and allow for 7 the Clerk to issue a summons after the first installment is received; and 8 3. Plaintiff be warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the 9 payment schedule may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 41(b). 11 | These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). No objections 13 || period is required for IFP denials. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 14 | 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to 15 || the magistrate judge's recommendation that [her] application to proceed in forma 16 || pauperis be denied.”). 17 18 | Dated: July 25, 2025 C i s 50 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 || 5, metz.1551.25 23 24 25 26 27 28