(SS) Stockdale v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAQUEL STOCKDALE, No. 2:21–cv–504–KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ON PLAINTIFF’S IFP REQUEST 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (ECF No. 2) SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Presently pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without 19 prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees).1 (ECF No. 2.) 20 The affidavit in support of the motion indicates plaintiff has a monthly income of 21 approximately $2115, i.e., $25,380 annually, has $5,600 in liquid assets, and has monthly 22 expenses of $930. (See ECF No. 2.) According to the United States Department of Health and 23 Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of 1 (not residing in Alaska or 24 Hawaii) is $12,880.00. See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. As plaintiff’s gross 25 household income is over 200% of the 2021 poverty guideline, the court cannot find plaintiff 26 unable to pay. To be sure, the court is sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff does not have a large 27 1 Actions involving review of Social Security decisions are referred to a magistrate judge 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15). 1 | income, and that plaintiff also has several expenses to contend with. However, numerous litigants 2 | in this court have significant monthly expenditures, and may have to make difficult choices as to 3 | which expenses to incur, which expenses to reduce or eliminate, and how to apportion their 4 | income between such expenses and litigating an action in federal court. Such difficulties in 5 || themselves do not amount to indigency. Thus, the court recommends plaintiff's IFP motion be 6 | denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all parties, 7 | magistrate judge lacks authority to issue dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status). 8 | Presently, a filing fee of $400.00 is required to commence a civil action in this court. 9 However, based on the information in the affidavit, it is clear that a one-time $400 10 | payment may represent a significant strain on plaintiff's monthly budget. Therefore, the court 11 | finds it appropriate to allow for monthly payments of $80 until the $400 filing fee is satisfied. 12 | Upon receipt of the first installment, the court would then issue the appropriate service orders. 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will assign a district judge to 14 || this case. 15 It is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's IFP request (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; 17 2. Plaintiff be granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $80 installments, beginning April 18 15, 2021, and due on the 15" each month thereafter, and allow for the Clerk to issue a 19 summons after the first installment is received; and 20 3. Plaintiff be warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment 21 schedule may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 22 | These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 23 | the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). No objections period is required for 24 | IFP denials. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 25 | 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to the magistrate judge's 26 || recommendation that [his] application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.”). 27 | Dated: March 23, 2021 stoc.504 28 Fens Arn 2 KENDALLI.NE TINITTET? STATES MWARTETP ATE