White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER Vacating 2 Order on Application to Proceed in forma pauperis and REVOKES Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status. The Court also finds that Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee ($400) in addition to the expenses incurred in effectuat ing process on his behalf, which the Court estimates to be $16.no later than October 6, 2016, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee and the fee for service of process in the total amount of $416. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/15/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 12 13 14 15 DWIGHT MARSHON WHITE, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant(s). ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:15-cv-01587-JCM-NJK ORDER 16 Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause. Docket No. 31. Plaintiff has filed 17 a response. Docket No. 32. In short, Plaintiff sought in forma pauperis status in a prior case attempting 18 to appeal the adverse social security determination that is also at issue in this case, that request was denied, 19 and judgment was entered against Plaintiff when he failed to pay the filing fee. See id. (discussing 20 proceedings in White v. U.S. Government, Case No. 2:15-cv-00194-APG-CWH (D. Nev.)). When 21 Plaintiff’s prior case was dismissed and judgment was entered, it became a settled fact that he could not 22 proceed in his social security appeal in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 23 (2008) (discussing doctrine of issue preclusion).1 Plaintiff could not relitigate that issue in this case through 24 the filing of a new in forma pauperis application, and the application that he filed in this case should have 25 26 1 27 28 The fact that Judge Gordon dismissed the previous case without prejudice does not render the doctrine of issue preclusion inapplicable: “It matters not that the prior action resulted in a dismissal without prejudice, so long as the determination being accorded preclusive effect was essential to the dismissal.” Deutsch v. Flannery, 823 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1987). 1 been denied as moot. Accordingly, the Court VACATES its order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in 2 forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and REVOKES Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Cf. Amarel v. Connell, 3 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts may reconsider interlocutory orders). The Court also finds that 4 Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee ($400) in addition to the expenses incurred in effectuating process on 5 his behalf, which the Court estimates to be $16. See, e.g., Russell v. Richardson, 2016 WL 4368192 (M.D. 6 Tenn. June 8, 2016), adopted 2016 WL 4264862 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 12, 2016). 7 Accordingly, no later than October 6, 2016, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee and the fee for service 8 of process in the total amount of $416. 9 recommendation of dismissal. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Failure to comply with this order will result in a Dated: September 15, 2016 12 13 ________________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?