Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00156/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00156-0/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

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amy Ann Thomas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 15-156-TUC-RCC (LAB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

filed on April 15, 2015. (Doc. 2)

The plaintiff, Amy Ann Thomas, filed this action for review of the final decision of

the Commissioner for Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 1) She argues

the Commissioner’s finding that she is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence.

Id.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Bowman for report and recommendation. LRCiv 72.2(a).

Discussion

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), this court may permit an action to go forward

without prepayment of fees and costs if the plaintiff submits an affidavit attesting that she

is unable to pay such costs. 

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 10 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

In this case, Thomas filed an affidavit in which she reports that her spouse has an

income of $5,000 per month or $60,000 per year. (Doc. 2, p. 2) She estimates her home has

a value of $125,000 and her two motor vehicles have a combined value of $33,000. (Doc.

2, p. 4) Her spouse has a personal savings account with a value of $1,500. (Doc. 2, p. 3)

She and her spouse have two dependents. Id.

Thomas further estimates the family’s monthly living expenses at $6,489.50 or

approximately $1,500 in excess of her spouse’s income. (Doc. 2, p. 6) Nevertheless, on this

record, the court cannot conclude that Thomas is indigent and unable to pay the court’s filing

fee of $400.00. See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865

F.2d 22, 23 (2nd Cir. 1988) (Defendant with “net income at approximately $20,000” was not

indigent and “not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.”); Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines,

Inc.; 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972) (Plaintiff with salary of approximately $16,500 per

year could not proceed in forma pauperis.). Accordingly,

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DENYING the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis filed on April 15, 2015. (Doc. 2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The Local Rules permit a response to an

objection. They do not permit a reply to a response.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2015.

Case 4:15-cv-00156-RCC-LAB Document 10 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 2