Armstead v. Saul ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD ARMSTEAD, Case No.: 19cv2302-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner [ECF NO. 3] of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff Reginald Armstead filed this social 18 security appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 19 U.S.C. §405(g), challenging the denial of his application for disability 20 benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the 22 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district 24 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 25 must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may 26 proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is 1 || granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriquez 9 ||v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely 3 destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 4 || Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the same even-handed care must be 5 ||employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at 6 || public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is 7 ||financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 8 || Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 9 Plaintiff states that his per month income is limited to $502.00 in 10 retirement, $424.72 in disability, $252.00 in public assistance and $194.00 in 11 ||food stamps. Plaintiff is unemployed and has no cash and no bank account. 12 ||(ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the 13 or post securities required to maintain this action. As such the Court 14 GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has also 15 ||reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, and concludes it is not subject to swa sponte 16 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: December 10, 2019 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27