Little v. Colvin

Filing 4

ORDER granting plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. US Marshal shall effect service of complaint. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 12/2/14 (IFP package prepared) (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

XAVIER MARQUEZ LITTLE,

11

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

14

14-cv-2111-LAB (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 2]

15
16

On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff Xavier Marquez Little (“Plaintiff”) filed a

17

complaint seeking judicial review of Defendant’s denial of disability benefits under the

18

Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed

19

in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.)

20

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

21

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, are required to pay a $350

22

filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure

23

to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

24

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th

25

Cir. 1999). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement

26

of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a

27

statement of all assets, showing that he is unable to pay filing fees. See 28 U.S.C.

28

§1915(a).
-1-

14cv2111-LAB (DHB)

1

In the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support

2

of the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to

3

pay the required filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177.

4

Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is also

5

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the

6

complaint is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be

7

granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28

8

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he

9

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Having

10

conducted its initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds it sufficient to survive

11

the sua sponte screening provisions of § 1915(e)(2).

12

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

14

2.

The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint, summons,

15

and this Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP upon Defendant as

16

directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall

17

be advanced by the United States.

18
19
20
21

3.

Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by the
applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 2, 2014

22
23

DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv2111-LAB (DHB)