Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01521/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01521-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

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

COURTNEY LAINE BEEUNAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILLL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 5)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Courtney Beeunas’s Motion to Amend/Correct

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Mot.”) (ECF No. 5), which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s 

Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has filed an action requesting 

that this Court review and reverse the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of 

benefits. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.)

IFP MOTION

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 

the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 

Case 3:17-cv-01521-JLS-RNB Document 6 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

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

may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party 

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In Plaintiff’s first Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), 

Plaintiff submitted an affidavit indicating she makes no monthly income but that she has 

two dependent children–aged twelve and ten–and that she has monthly expenses totaling 

$1,070.00. (ECF No. 2, at 4–5.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion because it was unclear 

how Plaintiff supported her children and paid her average monthly expenses without any 

income. (See ECF 4, at 2.)

In Plaintiff’s Amended Motion (ECF No. 5), she submitted an affidavit indicating 

her total monthly income is $2,211.00, consisting of funds from child support, public 

assistance, and her husband (from whom she is separated). (IFP Mot. 1–2.) However, 

Plaintiff also indicates her monthly expenses total $2,719.00. (Id. at 5.) It is still unclear to 

the Court how Plaintiff pays her average monthly expenses, which are over $500 greater 

than her monthly income. Given this, as well as the additional discrepancy between 

Plaintiff’s monthly expenses listed on both of her motions (such as why Plaintiff’s monthly 

rent increased by exactly $1,000 since the filing of her last motion), the Court is unable to 

determine whether Plaintiff’s affidavit is credible and thus cannot accurately assess her

ability to pay the $400 civil filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Proceed IFP.

CONCLUSION

Given the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff—within thirty days of the 

date on which this Order is electronically docketed—may either (1) file a new Motion to 

Case 3:17-cv-01521-JLS-RNB Document 6 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

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

Proceed In Forma Pauperis addressing the Court’s above-mentioned concerns, or (2) pay 

the $400 filing fee.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2017

 

1 The Court also notes that if Plaintiff again moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis the Court will 

be required to sua sponte screen Plaintiff’s underlying Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are 

not limited to prisoners.”). And given Plaintiff’s current, cursory allegations, the underlying Complaint 

would likely be subject to dismissal. See Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 

890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim 

for relief where the complaint merely alleged that the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits was 

wrong without explaining why or providing facts regarding claimant’s disability, and instead simply 

recited the general standards governing review of that decision); see also Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-

CV-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“The purpose of the complaint is to 

briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 

wrong.” (citing Brown v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-056-JL, 2011 WL 3664429, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011)).

Case 3:17-cv-01521-JLS-RNB Document 6 Filed 09/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3