Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01821/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01821-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1382 Eligibility for benefits

---

1

19cv1821-BLM

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

TIFFANI ANNE LANGFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1821-BLM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 3]

Plaintiff initiated the instant litigation on September 22, 2019, when she filed a complaint

against Defendant appealing the decision denying Plaintiff benefits. ECF No. 1. On the same 

date, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was 

notified that his case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major pursuant to General 

Order 707. ECF No. 2. Attached to the notice was a consent/declination form through which 

Plaintiff had the choice to consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction. Id. On October 8, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed her consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth 

below, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:19-cv-01821-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1821-BLM

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

§ 1915(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he 

is granted leave to proceed IFP 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 therfor, 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 therfor.

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). 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 . . . still be unable 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., 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 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).

Plaintiff fails to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to IFP status. 

Plaintiff submitted her application to proceed IFP, stating that she makes $19.42 per hour and 

Case 3:19-cv-01821-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1821-BLM

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

works 40 hours per week. ECF No. 3 at 1. Plaintiff reports that she has three dependents who 

rely on her for support, ages fourteen, fifteen, and seventeen, and that she has $0 in her 

checking account after bills. Id. However, Plaintiff also reports that she has $17,000 in her 

savings and when listing other sources of income, Plaintiff states that her husband owns a UPS 

store and his estimated annual income is $56,873. Id. at 1–2. In addition, though Plaintiff 

makes a car payment of $440 per month, she also owns two separate vehicles valued at $3,000 

and $6,000. Id. After reviewing Plaintiff’s financial background, the Court finds that IFP status 

is not appropriate, because Plaintiff has the resources to pay the filing fee by making acceptable 

sacrifices to other expenses. Allen, 1995 WL 396860 at *2; see also McCollough v. Colvin, 2016 

WL 9458801, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2016) (denying IFP status where Plaintiff had $495.22 in 

his checking account, $4881.30 in a money market, and was both unemployed and living with 

family). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 

Plaintiff must pay the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) no later than November 17, 

2019 or her case will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/22/2019

Case 3:19-cv-01821-BLM Document 5 Filed 10/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3