Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00979/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00979-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 02:0358 President's Recommendations on Exec., Jud. &amp; Leg. Salary

---

1

18-CV-0979 W (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

CURTIS SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-0979 W (BGS) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[DOC. 2]

On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff Curtis Scott commenced this action against Nancy A. 

Berryhill, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, for judicial 

review of a final administrative decision denying his application for Supplemental 

Security Income benefits and Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. Along with 

the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

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 3:18-cv-00979-W-BGS Document 3 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-0979 W (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

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 Plaintiff 

does not meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. According to his 

application, Plaintiff receives $3,084 a month in disability benefits from the VA, which 

this Court understands are not subject to federal income taxes. (IFP App. [Doc. 2] ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff also has a bank account with $1,000 balance, an IRA with a $9,000 balance, and 

appears to owns his 4-year old vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6.) As for debts, Plaintiff identifies a

monthly mortgage is $1,567, and $330 a month he pays towards a credit card balance 

Case 3:18-cv-00979-W-BGS Document 3 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-0979 W (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

made up of medical bills. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) He also indicates that he is responsible for 

monthly utility expenses, but does not identify the amount. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Based on this information, Plaintiff does not meet the standard of establishing that 

he “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and still be able to 

provide himself... with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Accordingly, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP [Doc. 2] and DISMISSES the 

Complaint. Plaintiff shall have until June 8, 2018 to reinstate this case by paying the 

filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00979-W-BGS Document 3 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3