Henderson v. Berryhill
Filing
3
ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Referring to Magistrate for Report and Recommendation. US Marshal shall effect service of complaint. The Court hereby refers all matters arising in this case to United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for a Report & Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1 (c)(1)(c ). Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 9/1/2017. (jao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD HENDERSON,
Case No.: 17-CV-1752 W (NLS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[DOC. 2] AND REFERRING TO
MAGISTRATE FOR REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff Ronald Henderson filed this action on August 30, 2017, seeking review of
20
the denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits under the Social
21
Security Act. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) He thereafter filed the pending motion to proceed in
22
forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 2].)
23
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted. For the reasons outlined
24
below, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion. [Doc. 2.]
25
//
26
//
27
28
1
17-CV-1752 W (NLS)
1
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
2
The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion.
3
California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on
4
other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court
5
to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the
6
statute’s requirement of indigency.”).
7
It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma
8
pauperis. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948).
9
To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient
10
which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and
11
still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339
12
(internal quotations omitted). At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care
13
must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public
14
expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material
15
part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
16
“[T]he greater power to waive all fees includes the lesser power to set partial fees.”
17
Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995).
18
The facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity,
19
definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.
20
1981). District courts tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the
21
filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL
22
396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (initially permitting Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis
23
but later requiring him to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v.
24
Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (“[P]laintiff possessed savings of $450
25
and the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to
26
allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action . . . .”). Permission to proceed IFP is
27
28
2
17-CV-1752 W (NLS)
1
“a matter of privilege and not right[,]” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir.
2
1984), and “ ‘in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of
3
litigation.’ ” Baize v. Lloyd, 2014 WL 6090324, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014)
4
(quoting Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9,
5
2009)).
6
7
II.
DISCUSSION
8
Henderson has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to IFP
9
status. According to his declaration, he is homeless and has no income except food
10
stamps and San Diego County General Relief. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 2] 2–3; Pl.’s Decl. [Doc.
11
2-1] ¶ 1.) He has not been employed in nearly seven years. (See Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 2] 2.)
12
He does not have any funds in bank accounts, nor any other valuable assets. (See id.
13
[Doc. 2] 2–3.)
14
The filing fee for an ordinary civil action is $400. Based on the foregoing,
15
Henderson has demonstrated that he lacks the means to pay the filing fee without
16
sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339–40. Accordingly,
17
Henderson demonstrates entitlement to IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
18
19
III.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
20
21
IFP. [Doc. 2.] In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, the Court orders as
22
follows:
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
28
3
17-CV-1752 W (NLS)
1
1.
2
on August 30, 2017 and an accompanying summons upon Defendants as
3
directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be
4
advanced by the United States.
5
2.
6
the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed
Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by
7
Additionally, the Court hereby REFERS all matters arising in this case to United
8
States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for a Report & Recommendation in accordance
9
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c ).
10
If the parties seek to file motions, they shall contact the chambers of Judge Stormes
11
to secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. All motion(s) for summary judgment
12
must be filed and served no later than 120 days after the Government files its answer.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: September 1, 2017
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-CV-1752 W (NLS)
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?