Clark v. Social Security Appeal Council
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HENRY L. CLARK,
Case No.: 16cv2710-JLS (AGS)
(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING WITHOUT
(2) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS
(ECF Nos. 2, 3)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Henry L. Clark’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.”, ECF No. 2.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to
Appoint Counsel. (“Counsel Mot.”, ECF No. 3.)
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay
the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court
may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party
submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is unable to pay the
required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that his total
monthly income is $61,309.64. (IFP Mot. 2,1 ECF No. 2.) This may have been an error of
calculation, and the Court finds it is more plausible that Plaintiff meant he receives over
$60,000 annually, and roughly $5,500 monthly. (Id.) He does not expect any major changes
to his monthly income or expenses in the next twelve months. (Id. at 5.) He also lists two
cars as assets, totaling a value of roughly $12,500.00. (Id. at 3.) Thus, while Plaintiff claims
to have no money in any bank account, (id. at 2), it appears Plaintiff can pay the requisite
filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and
DISMISSES THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court also DENIES AS
MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff may submit a copy
of this order along with the requisite fee on or before March 3, 2017 to have the case
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2017
Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
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?