Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03166/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03166-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

LINDA C. WILSON, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-3166-W(BLM)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [DOC. 2]; AND

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff Linda C. Wilson commenced this action against

Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial

review of a decision denying disability benefits. On the same day, she filed a motion

seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.) For the reasons outlined

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion.

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), rev’d on other grounds,

506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court

- 1 - 13cv3166

Case 3:13-cv-03166-W-BLM Document 3 Filed 12/30/13 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

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 rejectIFP 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., No. CIV S-06-0791, 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). Furthermore, 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 Courtfinds that Plaintiff’s

application fails to meet the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff

is currently unemployed, but receives cash aid from the county approximately in the

- 2 - 13cv3166

Case 3:13-cv-03166-W-BLM Document 3 Filed 12/30/13 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

amount of $44. (IFP Mot. at ¶ 1–3 [Doc. 2].) She also lists her husband’s income from

a temporary position at Walmart amounting to $1,200. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff either does

not have a checking or savings account, or has no money in either. (See id. ¶ 4.) But

she does own an automobile, though she fails to approximate its value. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Plaintiff lists 3 dependents under the age of 18, $800 per month in expenses, and “a lot

of medical bills” as a debt or financial obligation. (Id. ¶¶ 6–8.) Based on the details

given by Plaintiff, she has a net-positive monthly source of money. However, the Court

emphasizes that this conclusion is based on the few details that Plaintiff provides in her

IFP application. It does not contemplate the value of the automobile and the medical

bills because Plaintiff did not provide specific values for either. Therefore, without

more detailed information, the Court cannot conclude that paying the court filing fees

would impair Plaintiff’s ability to obtain the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at

339.

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (Doc. 2), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint. 

Pursuant to this order, Plaintiff is granted 30 days’ leave to pay the filing fee required

to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional

documentation regarding her financial status. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING HER POVERTY, SHE MUST

ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER. Additionally, Plaintiff is reminded that an

IFP application is made under penalty of perjury, and any false statements may result

in dismissal of her claims, imprisonment of not more than five years, or a fine. See 18

U.S.C. §§ 1621, 3571.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 30, 2013

HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN

United States District Court

Southern District of California

- 3 - 13cv3166

Case 3:13-cv-03166-W-BLM Document 3 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 3