Delgado v. Saul ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO DELGADO, Case No.: 20-cv-0639-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 3] 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff Roberto Delgado filed this social security 18 appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 19 §405(g), challenging the denial of his application for disability benefits. (ECF 20 No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 22 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 $355.00 in food 10 ||stamps and $83.00 in general relief. Plaintiff has approximately $20.00 in a 11 ||checking account. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is 12 |}unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. As 13 ||such the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The 14 Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, and concludes it is not subject 15 ||to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: June 14, 2020 tlh [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27