(SS)Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00733
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JODI JILL STEVENS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00733-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA SECURITY, PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 (Doc. No. 6) 17

18 19 On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff Jodi Jill Stevens (“Plaintiff”), proceeding through counsel, 20 filed the Complaint in this action. (Doc. No. 1). On the same date, Plaintiff filed a motion to 21 proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. No. 2). On July 28, 2025, the Court 22 ordered Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without 23 Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 (“Long Form”) because her application 24 demonstrated she may be receiving income above the poverty threshold, and the information 25 submitted was insufficient for the Court to determine if she is entitled to proceed without 26 prepayment of fees in this action. (Doc. No. 3). On August 8, 2025 Plaintiff filed a completed 27 Long Form. (Doc. No. 6). 28 Except for habeas corpus actions, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding 1 in a district court of the United States must pay a filing fee of $350.00 and additional 2 administrative fee of $55.00 for a total filing fee of $405.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), (c). A 3 civil action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 4 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Proceeding IFP is “a 5 matter of privilege and not right.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) 6 (abrogated on different grounds). While IFP applicants need not be “destitute” a showing of 7 indigence is required. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). A 8 plaintiff must allege indigence “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” before IFP 9 can be granted. United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Courts are 10 required “to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either 11 frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material 12 part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I.1984). 13 In her application, Plaintiff declares a monthly income of $2,700 for herself and a monthly 14 income of $6,400 for her spouse, for a total of $9,100 in household monthly income. (Doc. No. 6 15 at 1-2); see Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may consider a 16 plaintiff’s spouse’s financial resources in determining whether she is entitled to in forma pauperis 17 status). Plaintiff reports she and her spouse have $100 in cash and a total of $1,310 in checking 18 accounts; however, they list assets including a home valued at $450,000, a motor vehicle valued 19 at $34,000, and another vehicle valued at $28,000. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff and her spouse’s stated 20 monthly expenses include $1,900 in mortgage payments, $901 in utilities, $350 in home 21 maintenance, $500 in food, $300 in clothing, $750 in medical expenses, $650 in transportation, 22 $170 in life insurance, $400 in motor vehicle insurance, $1,600 in motor vehicle installment 23 payments, $900 in credit card and loan payments, $300 in “other” installment payments, and $200 24 in “support paid to others,” with expenses totaling approximately $8,921 per month. (Id. at 4-5). 25 Plaintiff lists her sister as a dependent who relies on her for support. (Id. at 5). 26 In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty threshold under § 27 1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department 28 of Health and Human Services. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human 1 Services, the 2025 federal poverty guideline for a two-person household in the contiguous United 2 States is $21,150 annually. See 2025 HHS Poverty Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty- 3 guidelines (last visited August 22, 2025). Plaintiff and her spouse’s annual income is more than 4 five times that threshold. Moreover, courts have consistently held that IFP status should not be 5 granted where an applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See 6 Alvarez v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 6265021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018). Plaintiff’s affidavit does 7 not demonstrate that paying the $405 filing fee would deprive her of life’s necessities. See 8 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234; see also Kaur v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 1023975, at *2 9 (Apr. 1, 2022), (recommending denial of in forma pauperis application and noting “courts in this 10 district have denied applications to proceed IFP, even where the budget ‘appear[s] tight,’ if the 11 itemized expenses reflect at least some extent of discretionary spending beyond strict necessity.”) 12 (collecting cases). 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 15 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations. 16 It is further RECOMMENDED: 17 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 6) be DENIED 18 without prejudice. 19 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with 20 this action. 21 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the case may be dismissed for failure to 22 prosecute and/or comply with a court order. 23 NOTICE TO PARTIES 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 26 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 27 objections with the Court. Id.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, 28 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen 2 | (15) pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party 3 | wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 4 | CM/ECEF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 5 | specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by 6 | the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 7 | 636(b)U)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 8 | waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 9 Dated: __August 22, 2025 Wile. Th fareh Zack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28