Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02008/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

– 1 – 14-cv-2008 BAS (JMA)

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

LINWOOD SUTTON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-2008 BAS (JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 2)

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN, acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff Linwood Sutton filed a Complaint against 

Carolyn Colvin and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECFs 1, 2. For the 

reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion, without 

prejudice to revisit the issue if new facts arise. Plaintiff may pay the fee in 

installments of $50 per month and must pay the first installment within 30 days of 

the date of this Order.

DISCUSSION

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 

Case 3:14-cv-02008-BAS-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 14-cv-2008 BAS (JMA)

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

grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 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 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, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on 

other grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a 

district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a 

prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from 

family). Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the 

course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., No. CIV S-06-0791, 

2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 

321); 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). In addition, 

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). 

Here, Plaintiff claims support from spousal income of $1,158.46 and potential 

Case 3:14-cv-02008-BAS-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/19/14 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 14-cv-2008 BAS (JMA)

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

total expenses of $1,041. Therefore the Court concludes that Plaintiff can afford to 

pay the filing fee in installments. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to 

proceed IFP. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay the $400 filing fee in installments of 

$50 per month, absent a further application for IFP properly completed 

demonstrating Plaintiff’s inability to pay $50 per month. The Court orders Plaintiff 

to pay the first $50 installment within 30 days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2014

Case 3:14-cv-02008-BAS-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/19/14 Page 3 of 3