Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02117/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02117-0/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

18-cv-02117-LAB-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

Uranna Longworth Greene,

Plaintiff,

v.

Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-02117-LAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

[ECF NO. 2]

On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff Uranna Longworth Greene filed a complaint 

seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her

application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed 

a form and affidavit entitled “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 

Fees or Costs” indicating she is entitled to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. (ECF 

No. 2.) 

A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if 

the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing that 

he or she is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The affidavit must “state

the facts as to [the] affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”

United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotations omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-02117-RNB Document 6 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-02117-LAB-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

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.”). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–340 (1948). An 

affidavit is sufficient if it shows that the applicant cannot pay the fee “and still be able to 

provide himself [or herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. (internal 

quotations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s motion indicates her only income is $745.00 a month in social 

security and $42.00 a month in public assistance. Her monthly expenses total $665.00. 

(ECF No. 2 at 2, 5.) The court construes Plaintiff’s affidavit as showing she has no 

financial obligations related to her housing expenses and no spouse.1 The affidavit also 

shows that Plaintiff is not employed and has no savings of any kind. Therefore, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which sufficiently shows that she lacks the 

financial resources to pay the filing fee. She is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 335 (litigants need not pay “the

last dollar they have” to enjoy the benefit of the IFP statute).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) 

is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2019

 

1

If this is not accurate, Plaintiff’s counsel must update the Court by having Plaintiff submit an updated 

affidavit. 

Case 3:18-cv-02117-RNB Document 6 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2