Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00115/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00115-0/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 (DIWW)

---

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

-1- 12cv115W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RHONDA G. HALE-FIEDLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-115 W (POR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2]

AND REFERRING TO

MAGISTRATE FOR REPORT &

RECOMMENDATION

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Rhonda G. Hale-Fiedler (“Plaintiff”) filed a

complaint seeking review of the denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. Along with the

complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2]. 

I. DISCUSSION

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, 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.”).

Case 3:12-cv-00115-W-DHB Document 5 Filed 01/17/12 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

-2- 12cv115W

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, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares

v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse

discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and

$110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995)

(Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120

filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D.

Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and

the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow

the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). 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). 

Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on

the current record, Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. §

1915. According to her declaration, Plaintiff does not have sufficient income to support

herself, and thus receives support from her mother, with whom Plaintiff lives. Plaintiff

has also shown that she does not currently have any possessions of significant value.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s IFP motion is GRANTED. 

Case 3:12-cv-00115-W-DHB Document 5 Filed 01/17/12 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

-3- 12cv115W

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed IFP [Doc. 2]. In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, the Court orders

as follows:

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

on January 13, 2012 and an accompanying summons upon

Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All

costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

2. Defendants shall respond to the Complaint within the time

provided by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Additionally, the Court hereby REFERS all matters arising in this case to United

States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a Report & Recommendation in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c ). 

If the parties seek to file motions, they shall contact the chambers of Judge Porter

to secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. All motion(s) for summary judgment

must be filed and served no later than 120 days after the Government files its answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2012

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00115-W-DHB Document 5 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 3