Chapman v. Colvin

Filing 3

ORDER directing Plaintiff to file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days. The Clerk is directed to file a blank IFP application when serving this Order. (Compliance due by 11/3/2016.) Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/19/16. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JACQUELINE E. CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
)
)
)

CV416-272

)
CAROLYN L. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)

ORDER
Proceeding pro se, Jacqueline Champman has filed a complaint
asking the Court to review the denial of her social security disability
claim. Doc. 1. She also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Doc. 2.
While a plaintiff need not be absolutely destitute in order to
proceed IFP, Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours , 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948), the fact that financing her own litigation may cause some
difficulty is not sufficient to relieve a plaintiff of her obligation to pay
her own way where it is possible to do so without undue hardship.

Thomas v. Secretary of Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 358 F. App’x 115, 116
(11th Cir. 2009) (the Court has wide discretion in ruling on IFP

application, and should grant the privilege “sparingly” in civil cases for
damages).
When considering a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
“[t]he only determination to be made by the court . . . is whether the
statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.”

Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc. , 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004).
The Court must compare the applicant’s assets and liabilities in order
to determine whether she has satisfied the poverty requirement. Id. at
1307-08; Thomas , 358 F. App’x at 116 (district court abused its
discretion by failing to compare plaintiff’s assets against her liabilities
to determine whether she satisfied the poverty requirement).
Chapman declares that she receives a combined $1,053 a month in
pension and Social Security benefits, and earns about $300 a month
from her part time job. Doc. 2. This would indicate that she is able to
afford the $400 filing fee. She does not list any recurring expenses,
however, so the Court is unable to assess whether paying the $400
filing fee would actually present undue hardship. The Court therefore

ORDERS plaintiff to file an amended application to proceed in forma
pauperis. This time, Chapman must fill out the entire application,
2

including the disclosure of all outstanding liabilities on page two. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to include a blank IFP application when
serving her with this Order.

SO ORDERED, this 19th day of October, 2016.
4,
i-----

UNITED SlATES MAGISTRATE =GE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3