Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01506/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01506-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL ARIZMENDI,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01506-BAM

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 

JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS BE DENIED 

(Doc. Nos. 2, 4)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff Angel Arizmendi (“Plaintiff”), proceeding through 

counsel, filed the complaint in this action seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. No. 2). 

On December 27, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to 

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 because 

Plaintiff’s application demonstrated that he may be receiving income well above the poverty 

threshold, and the information was insufficient for the Court to determine if he is entitled to 

proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. (Doc. No. 3.) On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff 

filed a completed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 

Case 1:19-cv-01506-BAM Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 3
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

(Long Form) – AO 239. (Doc. No. 4.) 

According to Plaintiff’s application, he is not currently employed and does not receive 

any money from other sources. However, his spouse receives income in the amount of 

$4,000.00 per month and has $200.00 in a checking account. Plaintiff does not have monthly 

expenses and his spouse’s monthly expenses include $940.00 per month in rent or homemortgage payments, $700.00 per month for utilities, $400.00 per month for food, $50.00 per 

month for clothing, $125.00 per month for medical and dental expenses, $250.00 per month of 

transportation, $129.00 per month for homeowner’s or renter’s insurance, $86.00 per month for 

life insurance, $281.00 per month for health insurance, $90.00 per month for motor vehicle 

insurance, $6.00 per month for taxes, $270.00 per month for motor vehicle installment 

payments, $250.00 per month for credit card payments, $50.00 per month for department store 

installment payments, $65.00 per month for mattress store installment payments, and $200.00 

per month for church tithing. Plaintiff does not identify any dependents.

Having considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that he has not made the 

showing required by section 1915(a) that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a District 

Judge to this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. Nos.

2, 4) be DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this 

action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Case 1:19-cv-01506-BAM Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01506-BAM Document 6 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3