Adelmeyer v. Saul

Filing 5

ORDER denying #2 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must pay the requisite filing fee on or before April 7, 2021, or her case may be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on 2/18/2021. (jpp) (dlg).

Case 3:21-cv-00227-DEB Document 5 Filed 02/18/21 PageID.17 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANET A. ,

Case No.: 21-cv-00227-DEB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,

15
16

[DKT. NO. 2]

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Plaintiff Janet A.’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis.
Dkt. No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Application.
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a $400 filing fee.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may authorize the commencement of a suit without
prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets,
showing he or she is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit
must “state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and
certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal
quotations omitted). 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). An affidavit is
1
21-cv-00227-DEB

Case 3:21-cv-00227-DEB Document 5 Filed 02/18/21 PageID.18 Page 2 of 3

1

sufficient if it shows the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to provide himself

2

[or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

3

Here, Plaintiff’s Application states that she and her spouse receive a combined

4

monthly income of $4,325 from real property, gifts, retirement, and self-employment.

5

Dkt. No. 2 at 1–2. Plaintiff reports that she is unemployed. Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims her and

6

her spouse’s monthly expenses exceed their income by $2,250. Dkt. No. 2 at 5 (stating

7

combined monthly expenses are $6,575 including rent or home-mortgage payment, health

8

insurance, utilities, food, recreation, credit card payments, and $3,500 in “Business

9

payroll”).1 However, Plaintiff lists significant assets, with a combined value of $857,500.

10

She also reports a checking/savings account with a balance of $10,000 and a business

11

checking account with an additional balance of $10,000. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also states she

12

and her husband have $800 in cash at hand. Id.

13

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in

14

forma pauperis. See Boudreaux v. Saul, No. 20-cv-274-BGS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15

64283, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) (“Although the application reflects Plaintiff is

16

spending more that he is receiving in income monthly, the Court would be hard pressed to

17

find someone receiving more than $5,000 a month in income should be allowed to proceed

18

at public expense.”).

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Application appears to be incomplete. On the Application, Plaintiff listed
$1,235 as her spouse’s “Regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or farm.”
Dkt. No. 2 at 5. Although the form directs Plaintiff to “attach detailed statement,” Plaintiff
provided no additional information on this answer. Id.
1

2
21-cv-00227-DEB

Case 3:21-cv-00227-DEB Document 5 Filed 02/18/21 PageID.19 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff must pay the requisite filing fee on or before April 7, 2021, or her case may
be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2021

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
21-cv-00227-DEB