(SS) Singh v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KULDIP SINGH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00533-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 Kuldip Singh (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, seeks review of a decision 20 of the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff initiated this action on May 6, 2024. (Doc. 1.) 21 On the same day, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915. (Doc. 2.). 23 According to Plaintiff’s application, he receives monthly income from Social Security in 24 the amount of $812.00 per month. He also receives $2,320.00 per month from his wife’s income. 25 (Doc. 2 at 2.) This amounts to an annual income of $37,584 ($812 x 12 months = $9,744; $2,320 26 x 12 months = $27,840; $9,744 + $27,840 = $37,584). Plaintiff lists only himself and his wife as 27 dependents. (Id.) 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 two, the 2024 poverty 10 guideline is $20,440. 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 May 7, 2024). 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’s household estimated annual income is nearly twice that of the federal poverty 16 guidelines. In light of this, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee while 17 also providing for the necessities of life. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY 18 DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. 19 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2) be 21 DENIED; and 22 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this 23 action. 24 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 26 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 1 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 2 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 3 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: May 7, 2024 /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