Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01521/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01521-0/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

17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

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

COURTNEY LAINE BEEUNAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILLL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Courtney Beeunas’s Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP Mot.”). (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has filed an action requesting that 

this Court review and reverse the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of 

benefits. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.)

IFP MOTION

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 of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 

the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 

may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party 

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Case 3:17-cv-01521-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1521-JLS (AGS)

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

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that she makes no 

monthly income and has not held a job since February, 2011. (IFP Mot. 2.) Plaintiff has 

$5.00 in her saving account, $10.00 in her checking account, and a 2011 Toyota Camry 

worth $5,000. (Id. at 2–3.) However, Plaintiff also notes that she has two dependent 

children—aged twelve and ten respectively—and that she has monthly expenses totaling 

$1,070.00. (Id. at 4–5.) This at the very least suggests that Plaintiff either has some other 

source of income or has not fully explained her financial situation to the Court; how has 

Plaintiff supported her children and paid her average monthly expenses without any income 

for almost six years? Accordingly, the Court cannot at this time make an informed decision 

regarding whether Plaintiff is able to pay the $400 filing fee to proceed in federal court.

CONCLUSION

Given the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff—within thirty days of the date on which 

this Order is electronically docketed—may either (1) file a new Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis addressing the Court’s above-mentioned concerns, or (2) pay the $400 

filing fee.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017

 

1 The Court also notes that if Plaintiff again moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis the Court will 

be required to sua sponte screen Plaintiff’s underlying Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are 

not limited to prisoners.”). And given Plaintiff’s current, cursory allegations, the underlying Complaint 

would likely be subject to dismissal. See Montoya v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00454-RFB-NJK, 2016 WL 

890922, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016) (collecting cases) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim 

for relief where the complaint merely alleged that the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits was 

wrong without explaining why or providing facts regarding claimant’s disability, and instead simply 

recited the general standards governing review of that decision); see also Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 1:12-

CV-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (“The purpose of the complaint is to 

briefly and plainly allege facts supporting the legal conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision was 

wrong.” (citing Brown v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-056-JL, 2011 WL 3664429, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 19, 2011)).

Case 3:17-cv-01521-JLS-RNB Document 4 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2