(SS) De Camp v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER NORMAN DE CAMP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01289-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECURITY, RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S 15 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED Defendant. IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 16 (Doc. 2) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Christopher Norman De Camp (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, seeks 20 review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff initiated this action on 21 October 7, 2022. (Doc. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.). 23 According to Plaintiff’s application, he receives monthly income from employment in the 24 amount of $500.00 per month. He also receives VA disability benefits of $2,116.00 per month. 25 (Doc. 2 at 2.) This amounts to an annual income of $31,392.00 ($2,616.00 x 12 months). 26 Plaintiff has no dependents. (Id. at 2.) 27 /// 28 1 “To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, applicants must demonstrate that 2 because of poverty, they cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves, and any 3 dependents, with the necessities of life.” Soldani v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-00040, 4 2019 WL 2160380, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019). Many courts look to the federal poverty 5 guidelines set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a 6 guidepost in evaluating in forma pauperis applications. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 7 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004); Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv-01163- 8 LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty 9 guidelines to in forma pauperis application). For a family or household of one, the 2022 poverty 10 guideline is $13,590.00. See U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial 11 Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines 12 (last visited October 12, 2022). 13 Having considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that he has not made the 14 showing required by section 1915 that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action. 15 Plaintiff has attested to employment income along with monthly VA disability benefits. 16 Plaintiff’s household estimated annual income is more than double the federal poverty guidelines. 17 In light of this, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee while also 18 providing for the necessities of life. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY 19 DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 20 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2) be 22 DENIED; and 23 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this 24 action. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 27 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 28 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 1 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 2 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 3 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: October 12, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28