(SS) Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JODI CLAIRE CLARK, CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-00227-BAK-GSA 7 Plaintiff, 8 FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 9 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO 10 Commissioner of Social Security, REQUIRE FILING FEE PAYMENT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 11 TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED Defendant. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 (Docs. 3) 13 14 15 16 17 On February 23, 2022 Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court and applied to proceed 18 without prepayment of fees (in forma pauperis) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Docs. 1–3. 19 I. Legal Standard 20 In order to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must submit an affidavit 21 demonstrating that she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 22 “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th 23 Cir. 1965). In enacting the in forma pauperis statute, “Congress intended to guarantee that no 24 citizen shall be denied an opportunity to commence, prosecute, or defend an action, civil or 25 criminal, in any court of the United States, solely because . . . poverty makes it impossible . . . to 26 pay or secure the costs of litigation.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (internal 27 quotations and citations omitted). 28 The determination whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis is a “matter within the 1 discretion of the trial court . . .” Weller v. Dickinson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963). To proceed 2 in forma pauperis, a plaintiff need not demonstrate that he is completely destitute, but his poverty 3 must prevent him from paying the filing fee and providing himself and his dependents (if any) with 4 the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). 5 Although there is no bright line rule, courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each 6 year by the Department of Health and Human Services. See, e.g., Lint v. City of Boise, No. CV09- 7 72-S-EJL, 2009 WL 1149442, at *2 (D. Idaho Apr. 28, 2009) (and cases cited therein). 8 II. Findings 9 Plaintiff’s application reflects that she has no spouse, no dependents, and received income 10 of $2,130 per month over the past year ($25,560 per year) in social security and employment 11 income, which is substantially more than the 2022 federal poverty guideline for a household of one 12 ($13,590) per year). See 2022 Poverty Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last 13 visited February 24, 2022). The application reflects monthly expenses nearly equivalent to monthly 14 income, and no cash on hand. Although Plaintiff’s budget does appear tight, the itemized monthly 15 expenses reflect at least some extent of discretionary spending beyond strict necessity, including 16 $145 per month earmarked for phone and internet, $334 per month in car payments, and $600 per 17 month in credit card installment payments beyond the amounts already earmarked for food, utilities, 18 transportation, and recreation. The application reflects $900 in installment payments still owing 19 on her 2013 Ford Explorer she estimates is worth $13,000. The application also reflects that 20 Plaintiff lives with a friend and pays no rent. These facts, in addition to the significant gap between 21 Plaintiff’s income and the federal poverty line for a household of one suggest an ability to pay the 22 $402 filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of daily life. 23 III. Recommendation 24 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis be denied (Doc. 3). 26 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this case to a United States District 27 Judge for resolution of these findings and recommendations pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days from the filing of these findings and 1 recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. L.R. 304(b). Such a 2 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 3 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 4 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 5 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: February 24, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28