Nguyen v. Berryhill
ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a renewed motion for IFP containing the requisite information regarding his ability to pay the costs of commencing this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/14/2017. (lrf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 17cv1406-MMA (NLS)
TAM PHAN NGUYEN,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[Doc. No. 2]
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff Tam Phan Nguyen filed this social security appeal
pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the
denial of his application for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff simultaneously filed
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. No. 2. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.
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 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in
forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir.
1965). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). But “the same even-
handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to
underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor
who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v.
Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether
he should be granted IFP status. On Plaintiff’s application, Plaintiff does not adequately
respond to question 2, part b, which requests that he list “the date of [his] last
employment, the amount of [his] take-home salary or wages and pay period and the name
and address of [his] last employer.” See Doc. No. 2. Instead, Plaintiff only writes “about
2010 or 2011, not sure.” See Doc. No. 2. Also, Plaintiff does not respond fully to
question 3, which requires that applicants respond either “yes” or “no” to every subpart.
Further, Plaintiff submitted an outdated version of the IFP application form. If Plaintiff
wishes to file a renewed motion to proceed IFP, Plaintiff must use the updated form,
which he may access on the Court’s website on its “Forms” page1 or by visiting the Clerk
of Court’s office in person.2 Plaintiff must answer every question.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
IFP. Doc. No. 2; see Civ. L.R. 3.2. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order,
Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a renewed motion for
IFP containing the requisite information regarding his ability to pay the costs of
commencing this action. If Plaintiffs fail to timely submit payment or a renewed motion
for IFP, this case shall be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 14, 2017
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
The Clerk’s Office is located at 333 West Broadway, Suite 420, San Diego, California, 92101.
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?