Charles v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 3

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLORIA ANN CHARLES, 17-cv-955 GSA 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 ORDER REQUIRING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 18 19 On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff Gloria Ann Charles filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 20 Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). A review of the document reveals that it is incomplete. For example, 21 item 6 requires that the applicant, “list persons who are dependent on you for support, the 22 relationship of such person, and how much you contribute to their support.” (Doc. 2, item 2). This 23 item is left blank. It is unclear whether this item was left blank unintentionally, or if Plaintiff has 24 no dependents. This is important because the 2017 United States poverty guidelines for a family 25 of one is $12,060.00 per year. Plaintiff has indicated that 26 she has a monthly income of $1,339.00 from Social Security which places her income over the 27 2017 poverty guidelines. (Doc 2, item 3). 28 Additionally, the Court has other concerns regarding Plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff also 1 1 indicates that she owns a 2016 Audi SUV which is a luxury vehicle, and she also owns a single 2 house residence worth $250,000, for which she owes $40,000 in payments. She also reports 3 savings of $3,300. Plaintiff’s reported income does not support these assets. As such, Plaintiff 4 shall file an amended application which is complete and includes an explanation of how she is 5 able to have these assets on a limited income, as well as explain why this Court should grant in 6 forma pauperis to Plaintiff given her financial situation. 7 The Court is unable to process this application until this information is completed. 8 Therefore, Plaintiff shall file an amended application no later than August 4, 2017. Plaintiff’s 9 counsel is reminded that it is important to review IFP applications for completeness and accuracy 10 prior to filing the document in order to prevent delays and to promote judicial efficiency. The 11 Court notes counsel’s lack of attention to this detail is becoming a pattern of practice as reflected 12 in this Court’s previous order in Ruiz v. CSS, 16-cv-1789 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2016) (Doc. 3 and 13 6), wherein the Court issued an order requiring that an amended IFP application be filed based on 14 an incomplete application, and the subsequent issuance of Order to Show Cause for counsel’s 15 failure to timely respond to the Court’s first order. Counsel is advised that a failure to respond 16 to this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?