Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 1, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01483
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KIM MARIE WILSON, Case No.: 21-CV-1483 W (RBM)

14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 15 v. PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2] AND REFERRING CASE TO THE 16 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR A SECURITY, 17 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Defendant. 18 19 20 On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff Kim Marie Wilson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 21 seeking review of the denial of her claim for social security disability insurance benefits 22 and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. Along with the 23 complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (the “Motion” 24 [Doc. 2]). 25 26 I. INTRODUCTION 27 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 28 California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on 1 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 2 to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 3 statute’s requirement of indigency.”). 4 It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 5 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To 6 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 7 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and 8 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. 9 At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 10 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of 11 a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 12 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 13 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can 14 pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. 15 Hennessey, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares 16 v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse 17 discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and 18 $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 19 (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120 20 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 21 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and the 22 magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow the 23 plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant’s 24 poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United 25 States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 26 Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on the 27 current record, Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 28 According to her declaration (attached to the Motion), Plaintiff’s total monthly income is 1 $390 and she receives financial assistance from her parents, who pay for insurance. (Mot. 2 ||9§ 1,11.) She lives “with a friend who pays all bills” and she has not been employed for 3 least two years. (Ud. §§ 2, 11.) Her checking and savings accounts total $55 and her 4 || only asset is a 2013 Dodge Avenger that she estimates is worth $5,000. (Cd. 4 4, 5). 5 Meanwhile, Plaintiff estimates her monthly expenses total approximately $390. (/d. 8.) 6 || Based on these facts, the Court will grant Plaintiff's IFP motion. 7 8 CONCLUSION & ORDER 9 For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Motion [Doc. 10 Additionally, the Court hereby REFERS all matters arising in this case to United 11 ||States Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro for a Report & Recommendation in 12 || accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)\(c ). 13 If the parties seek to file motions, they shall contact the chambers of Judge 14 || Montenegro to secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. All motion(s) for summary 15 ||judgment must be filed and served no later than 120 days after the Government files its 16 || answer. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 |}Dated: November 1, 2021 \ 19 [pe Dor 20 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28