Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02221/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02221-0/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

17-cv-02221-LAB-BGS

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

Henry Furiani,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-02221-LAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 3]

On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff Henry Furiani filed a Complaint seeking judicial 

review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for 

disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to 

commence this action. Before this Court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 3.) 

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

United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring a party instituting a civil action to 

pay a filing fee of $350 as well as a $50 administrative fee). An action may proceed despite 

a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP 

Case 3:17-cv-02221-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-02221-LAB-BGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which states:

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, 

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without 

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit 

that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person 

is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The determination of indigency falls within the district 

court’s discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), 

reversed on other grounds by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“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 IFP. Adkins 

v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948); Jefferson v. United States, 

277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). 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 for himself and dependents with 

the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the same time, “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 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 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds by Olivares v. Marshall, 59 

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

partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and $110 per month from 

family); Allen v. Kelley, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially 

permitted to proceed IFP, later required to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement 

proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (IFP application denied 

because the plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and that was more than sufficient to pay 

Case 3:17-cv-02221-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-02221-LAB-BGS

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 filing fee). Moreover, 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).

Here, Plaintiff has filed an affidavit stating that his total monthly income is $0 and

he has not been employed since 2009. (ECF No. 2 at 1-2.) While his spouse’s monthly

gross income is $2,516, they have monthly expenses of $2,171.80. (Id. at 3-5.) They have 

a total of $350.85 in the bank. (Id. at 2-3.) Based on the information provided, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fee. See, e.g., Jefferson, 277 F.2d at

725 (“One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain [the] benefits of the in forma pauperis 

statute.”); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting “there is no 

formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor 

enough to earn IFP status,” but, “[w]hatever the standard, $350 is a lot of money to many 

millions of Americans”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 

IFP (ECF No. 3). 

In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed on 

October 31, 2017 and an accompanying summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff 

on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

2. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or document 

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to 

be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct 

copy of any document was served on Defendant or Defendant’s counsel and the date of 

service. Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed 

with the Clerk or that fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:17-cv-02221-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-02221-LAB-BGS

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

Dated: November 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02221-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 11/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4