Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02245/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02245-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)

---

1

17-cv-2245 W (KSC)

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

JULIE ANN HARRELL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-2245 W (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP [DOC. 3] AND 

REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE FOR 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff Julie Ann Harrell (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 

seeking review of the denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. Along with the 

complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 3]. 

I. DISCUSSION

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, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 

Case 3:17-cv-02245-W-KSC Document 4 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-2245 W (KSC)

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

to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 

statute’s requirement of indigency.”).

It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To 

satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 

which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and

still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. 

At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 

federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of 

a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 

v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can 

pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. 

Hennessey, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, 

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not 

abuse discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly 

salary and $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay 

$120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 

(E.D. Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of 

$450 and the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to 

allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the 

affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” 

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

Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on the 

current record, Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

According to her declaration, Plaintiff does not have sufficient income to support herself,

and lives with the mother of her fiancé, who recently passed away. (IFP App. [Doc. 3] ¶ 

Case 3:17-cv-02245-W-KSC Document 4 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-2245 W (KSC)

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

6.) Plaintiff has also shown that she does not currently have any possessions of 

significant value. Therefore, Plaintiff’s IFP motion will be granted. 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP [Doc. 3]. In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, the Court orders as 

follows:

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed on 

November 3, 2017 and an accompanying summons upon Defendants as 

directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be 

advanced by the United States.

2. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by the 

applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, the Court hereby REFERS all matters arising in this case to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for a Report & Recommendation in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c ). 

If the parties seek to file motions, they shall contact the chambers of Judge 

Crawford to secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. All motion(s) for summary 

judgment must be filed and served no later than 120 days after the Government files its 

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02245-W-KSC Document 4 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3