Lozada v. Saul ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RORY L., Case No.: 20cv1499-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 14 (ECF No. 2) Defendant. 15 16 On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff Rory L. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social 17 security appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 18 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of Plaintiff’s application for disability 19 insurance benefits and supplemental security income disability benefits. 20 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court 22 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 23 DISCUSSION 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 25 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 26 1 must pay a filing fee of $400.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 2 despite plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to 3 proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 4 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a right.” 5 Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be 6 completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 7 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the same even-handed care must be 8 employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at 9 public expense, either frivolous claims or remonstrances of a suitor who is 10 financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 11 Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 12 As such, “the facts as to [an] affiant's poverty” must be stated “‘with 13 some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 14 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 15 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). “It is important for litigants applying to 16 proceed without prepaying fees and costs to accurately and honestly report 17 their income, assets, and expenses[.]” Archuleta v. Arizona, No. CV 19-05466 18 PHX CDB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186262, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2019). An 19 applicant must "[c]omplete all questions" in his application and "not leave 20 any blanks[.]" Id. 21 Plaintiff receives $2,000.00 a month in income and has a checking 22 account with $100.00 in it. (ECF No. 2 at 1-2). Additionally, Plaintiff owns a 23 vehicle valued at $5,000.00, but still owes $2,000.00 on it. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff 24 25 1 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 26 administrative fee of $50.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016)). The additional $50.00 1 reports $4,750.00 in monthly expenses. (/d. at 4). Plaintiffs affidavit 9 ||sufficiently shows Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post securities 3 ||required to maintain this action because his expenses exceed his income. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. The 6 || Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is not subject 7 ||to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2020 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27