(SS) Moroles v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

VALERIE ANN MOROLES, Case No. 1:25-cv-00809-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S SECURITY, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED Defendant. (Docs. 2, 4) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff Valerie Ann Moroles, through counsel, filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) On July 7, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and file a long form application as Plaintiff’s application was insufficient for the Court to determine if Plaintiff was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in the action, noting that Plaintiff reports that in the past 12 months she has received income from (a) disability or workers compensation payments and (b) other sources, but has not stated the amount that she received from disability or workers compensation payments and what she expects to receive in the future, as required by the application. (Doc. 3.) On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a long form motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4.) According to Plaintiff’s long form application, her spouse receives monthly income from employment in the amount of $3,300 per month. (Doc. 4 at 2.) This amounts to an annual income of $39,600 ($3300 x 12 months). “To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, applicants must demonstrate that because of poverty, they cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves, and any dependents, with the necessities of life.” Soldani v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-00040, 2019 WL 2160380, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019). Many courts look to the federal poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a guidepost in evaluating in forma pauperis applications. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004); Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv-01163- LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty guidelines to in forma pauperis application). For a family or household of two, the 2025 poverty guideline is $21,150. See U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty- economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines (last visited July 28, 2025). Having considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that she has not made the showing required by section 1915 that she is unable to pay the required fees for this action. Plaintiff has attested to household employment income that is well above the federal poverty guidelines. (Doc. 4.) In light of this, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee while also providing for the necessities of life. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Docs. 2, 4) be DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE