Charles v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Requiring the Filing of an Amended In Forma Pauperis Application, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/20/17. Motion for IFP due by 8/4/2017. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GLORIA ANN CHARLES,
ORDER REQUIRING THE FILING OF AN
AMENDED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff Gloria Ann Charles filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). A review of the document reveals that it is incomplete. For example,
item 6 requires that the applicant, “list persons who are dependent on you for support, the
relationship of such person, and how much you contribute to their support.” (Doc. 2, item 2). This
item is left blank. It is unclear whether this item was left blank unintentionally, or if Plaintiff has
no dependents. This is important because the 2017 United States poverty guidelines for a family
of one is $12,060.00 per year. https://aspe.hhs.gov/pverty-guidelines. Plaintiff has indicated that
she has a monthly income of $1,339.00 from Social Security which places her income over the
2017 poverty guidelines. (Doc 2, item 3).
Additionally, the Court has other concerns regarding Plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff also
indicates that she owns a 2016 Audi SUV which is a luxury vehicle, and she also owns a single
house residence worth $250,000, for which she owes $40,000 in payments. She also reports
savings of $3,300. Plaintiff’s reported income does not support these assets. As such, Plaintiff
shall file an amended application which is complete and includes an explanation of how she is
able to have these assets on a limited income, as well as explain why this Court should grant in
forma pauperis to Plaintiff given her financial situation.
The Court is unable to process this application until this information is completed.
Therefore, Plaintiff shall file an amended application no later than August 4, 2017. Plaintiff’s
counsel is reminded that it is important to review IFP applications for completeness and accuracy
prior to filing the document in order to prevent delays and to promote judicial efficiency. The
Court notes counsel’s lack of attention to this detail is becoming a pattern of practice as reflected
in this Court’s previous order in Ruiz v. CSS, 16-cv-1789 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2016) (Doc. 3 and
6), wherein the Court issued an order requiring that an amended IFP application be filed based on
an incomplete application, and the subsequent issuance of Order to Show Cause for counsel’s
failure to timely respond to the Court’s first order. Counsel is advised that a failure to respond
to this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 20, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?