Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02239/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02239-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIKI T. HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-2239-L(BLM)

ORDER DENYING AMENDED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS MOTION [DOC. 5]

On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff Niki T. Herrera commenced this social security action. 

(Doc. 1.) On the same day, she filed a motion seeking in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. (Doc.

3.) The Court denied that motion and dismissed the case. (Doc. 4.) However, Plaintiff was

given the choice to either pay the filing fee to maintain this action, or submit additional

documentation regarding her financial status. She chose the latter. Now pending before the

Court is Plaintiff’s amended motion seeking IFP status. (Doc. 5.) For the reasons outlined

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion.

//

//

11cv2239

Case 3:11-cv-02239-L-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s

Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194

(1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound

discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of

indigency”). It is well-settled that 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). To satisfy

the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that

one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide

himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the same time, however, “the

same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to

underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole

or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I.

1984).

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the

filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F.

Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59

F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a

partial fee payment from a prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 

per month from family). Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during

the course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D.

Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321); see also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL

396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that a plaintiff who was initially permitted to

proceed in forma pauperis should be required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900

settlement). In addition, the facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some 

particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to

meet 28 U.S.C. § 1915’s requirements for IFP status. Plaintiff is unemployed. (Am. IFP Mot. at

11cv2239

2

Case 3:11-cv-02239-L-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/08/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

¶ 2 [Doc. 5].) However, she receives money from her husband, who earns $1,600 per month,

and from her daughter, who receives $500 in Social Security Disability payments. (Id. at ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff has a checking account with a present balance of $1.25. (Id. at ¶ 4.) And she also

indicates that her husband owns an automobile that is not financed. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Furthermore,

Plaintiff suggests that she has no debts or expenses. (See id. at ¶¶ 8–9.) Indeed, Plaintiff has

only added assets to her amended motion compared her initial one, which only suggests that she

is even more capable of paying the filing fee for this action. Consequently, the Court finds that

requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees would not impair her ability to obtain the

necessities of life. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Doc. 5) If Plaintiff wishes to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, she must pay

the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

11cv2239

3

Case 3:11-cv-02239-L-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/08/11 Page 3 of 3