Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01342/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01342-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH LYNN RIEGEL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 15-CV-1342 W (MDD)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[DOC. 2]; AND

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration

Defendant.

On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff Deborah Lynn Riegel (“Plaintiff”) commenced this

action against Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, for judicial

review of a final administrative decision denying disability benefits. (See Compl. [Doc. 1].) 

Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). (See IFP Mot. [Doc. 2].) For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s IFP motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s ComplaintWITHOUTPREJUDICE.

//

- 1 - 15cv1342w

Case 3:15-cv-01342-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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. Cal.

Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506

U.S. 194 (1993) (“[28 U.S.C. §] 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 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 IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,

339–40 (1948); see also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he

filing fee, while discretionary, should not take the prisoner’s last dollar.”). Rather, to

satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an affidavit need only state that one

cannot “because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to

provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339

(internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, however, the court must “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., Olivares, 59 F.3d

at 112 (district court did not abuse discretion in requiring partial fee payment from

prisoner who consistently spent $35 a month on “comforts” such as candy and name

brand toiletries from the prison commissary); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D.

Pa. 1982) (IFP application denied because “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, “in forma pauperis status may be

acquired and lost during the course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts.,

2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citation omitted); see also Allen v.

Kelly, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that a plaintiff who

was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be required to pay his $120

filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Furthermore, the facts as to the affiant’s poverty

- 2 - 15cv1342w

Case 3:15-cv-01342-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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 Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff

fails to meet the requirements set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff is

currently employed; her take-home wages amount to $575 each month. (IFP Mot. ¶ 2.)

She also lists her husband’s disability income, which amounts to $1,300 per month. (Id.

¶ 3.) Plaintiff does not have a checking or savings account, nor does she own any real

estate, stocks, bonds, or securities. (Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 7.) Plaintiff and her husband do,

however, own two vehicles: a 2004 Toyota Matrix and a 2005 Ford Focus. (Id. ¶ 6.) The

current value of the vehicles is not stated in Plaintiff’s motion, but it appears that

Plaintiff and her husband own the vehicles outright. (See id.) Plaintiff does not list any

dependents. (Id. ¶ 6–8.) Furthermore, with regard to expenses, Plaintiff’s motion lists

monthly expenses totaling $1,705. Specifically, Plaintiff states that she allocates her

household income toward the following expenses and in the following amounts: $830

for rent; $180 for utilities; $70 for car insurance; $200 for car maintenance and fuel;

$400 for groceries; and $25 for laundry. 

Based on the details given by Plaintiff, she has a net-positive monthly household

source of money of approximately $170. In addition, the details provided in Plaintiff’s

motion indicate that Plaintiff’s monthly household income places her above the 2015

poverty threshold. Therefore, as it stands, the Court cannot conclude that paying the 1

court filing fees would impair Plaintiff’s ability to obtain the necessities of life. See

Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Furthermore, Plaintiff and her husband also appear to own

two vehicles. In the absence of more detailed information regarding the value of the

According to the figures supplied by Plaintiff, her annual household income amounts 1

to $22,500. According to the poverty guidelines promulgated by the United States Department

of Health and Human Services, the poverty threshold for two-person households in the fortyeight contiguous states is $15,930. See United States Department of Health and Human

Services, 2015 PovertyGuidelines, http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm (last visitedAugust

3, 2015). 

- 3 - 15cv1342w

Case 3:15-cv-01342-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 4
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

vehicles, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff, because of her poverty, is unable to

give security for the cost of filing her Complaint and still be able to provide herself and

her husband with the necessities of life. See id.; see also Azzun v. Kan. Dep’t of Health

and Env’t, 2009 WL 5171778 (D. Kans. Dec. 22, 2009) (citing cases for the dual

propositions that “[a] court may consider [an] applicant’s assets, not merely his or her

income, in determining the applicant’s ability to pay the filing fee,” and that “[f]ederal

courts have historically looked to assets, such as equity in real estate, in determining

eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis”).

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP

(Doc. 2), and DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE . Pursuant to this

order, Plaintiff is granted 30 days’ leave to pay the filing fee required to maintain this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding

her financial status. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION REGARDING HER POVERTY, SHE MUST ATTACH A COPY

OF THIS ORDER. Additionally, Plaintiff is reminded that an IFP application is made

under penalty of perjury, and any false statements may result in dismissal of her claims,

imprisonment of not more than five years, or a fine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 3571.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2015

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv1342w

Case 3:15-cv-01342-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 4