Bunnell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 4

Opinion and Order: Plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is DENIED. Signed on 3/7/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KATE JENNINE BUNNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

Sara L. Gabin
Sara L. Gabin, P.C., Attorney at Law
14523 Westlake Drive
Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035
Attorney for Plaintiff

OPINION & ORDER - 1

No. 3:17-cv-00175-HZ
OPINION & ORDER

Janice E. Hebert
United States Attorney’s Office
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Attorney for Defendant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff Kate Bunnell’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [2] is denied.
A review of the application indicates that Plaintiff’s husband has a regular income of $4604 per
month that she may use to pay the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff also indicated that she receives
$1504 per month in pensions, annuities, or life insurance payments. A litigant must show that he
or she “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to
provide himself and dependents with necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Litigants are not required to contribute their “last dollar” or
“make themselves and their dependents wholly destitute.” Id. Courts may look to the federal
poverty guidelines as a reference point for determining whether granting IFP status is warranted.
The 2017 federal poverty guidelines set the poverty threshold for a household with two persons
at $16,240. See U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., Poverty Guidelines,
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (Jan. 26, 2017). Plaintiff’s income is well in excess of the
federal poverty guidelines and exceeds her monthly expenses.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [2] is DENIED.
Dated this

day of __

MARCH
____________, 2017.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
OPINION & ORDER - 2