Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01032/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01032-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP JAMES

Plaintiff, CIV S-08-1032 GGH

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

Commissioner of Social Security, RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this action, has filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. This court, after examining plaintiff’s affidavit, hereby recommends plaintiff’s

application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) be

DENIED. 

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil

action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court, however, may authorize the

commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff’s application does not demonstrate that because of his poverty,

plaintiff cannot meet court costs and still provide himself and his dependents with the necessities

Case 2:08-cv-01032-GGH Document 3 Filed 05/16/08 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

2

of life. Plaintiffs’ income and assets demonstrate that he is able to pay the filing fee and costs. 

Thus, plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigence. See Alexander v. Carson Adult

High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993); California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858

(9th Cir. 1991) rev’d on other grounds, Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 113

S. Ct. 716 (1993); United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 1940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam);

Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, (N.D. Cal. 1994), aff’d in part, vacated in part, sub.

nom. Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign this case to a

District Judge. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

be DENIED, and that plaintiff pay the filing fee within ten days of the adoption of this order.

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 ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 05/16/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

james.ifp

Case 2:08-cv-01032-GGH Document 3 Filed 05/16/08 Page 2 of 2