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)

Download PDF
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)

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?