Clark v. Social Security Appeal Council

Filing 4

ORDER: (1) Denying 2 Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis And Dismissing Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint; And (2) Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is ordered that plaintiff may submit a copy of this order along with the requisite fee on or before 3/3/2017 to have the case reopened. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/3/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENRY L. CLARK,

Case No.: 16cv2710-JLS (AGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER
(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT; AND
(2) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS
COUNCIL,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

(ECF Nos. 2, 3)

19
20
21

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Henry L. Clark’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

22

Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.”, ECF No. 2.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to

23

Appoint Counsel. (“Counsel Mot.”, ECF No. 3.)

24

IFP MOTION

25

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

26

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

27

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay

28

the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1
16cv2710-JLS (AGS)

1

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court

2

may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party

3

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is unable to pay the

4

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

5

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that his total

6

monthly income is $61,309.64. (IFP Mot. 2,1 ECF No. 2.) This may have been an error of

7

calculation, and the Court finds it is more plausible that Plaintiff meant he receives over

8

$60,000 annually, and roughly $5,500 monthly. (Id.) He does not expect any major changes

9

to his monthly income or expenses in the next twelve months. (Id. at 5.) He also lists two

10

cars as assets, totaling a value of roughly $12,500.00. (Id. at 3.) Thus, while Plaintiff claims

11

to have no money in any bank account, (id. at 2), it appears Plaintiff can pay the requisite

12

filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and

13

DISMISSES THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court also DENIES AS

14

MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff may submit a copy

15

of this order along with the requisite fee on or before March 3, 2017 to have the case

16

reopened.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
2
16cv2710-JLS (AGS)