Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01897/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01897-0/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 (DIWC)

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIERDRA LONDONO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY.,

 Defendant.

1:16-cv-01897-EPG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 3)

On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff Dierdra Londono filed a complaint seeking judicial 

review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying 

her application for disability benefits. Additionally, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”). (ECF No. 3.)

As an initial matter, the IFP application is made by “Dierdra L. Burston.” However, the 

docket indicates that the complaint was filed Plaintiff Dierdra Londono. The complaint states 

that this case was initiated by “Dierdra Burston Londono.” (ECF No. 1.) While the Court can 

surmise that the IFP applicant is likely the same person as the person initiating this case, the 

IFP application should accurately reflect the name of Plaintiff. This inconsistency can be fixed 

upon re-filing the IFP application.

Case 1:16-cv-01897-EPG Document 4 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Second, question 3 of the IFP asks whether Plaintiff has received any money from other 

sources, to which Plaintiff responded in the affirmative. The second part of the question asks 

the applicant to provide details concerning the source of money, the amount received and what 

you expect you will continue to receive. Plaintiff answered only that “[m]y husband supports 

me.” The Court requires additional information in connection with this question, regarding the 

amount of support and resources available to the husband.

The Court will deny the IFP application. (ECF No. 3.) However, Plaintiff may refile an 

IFP application correcting the issues identified in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01897-EPG Document 4 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 2