Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00644/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00644-0/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

19-CV-0644 W (JLB) 

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

CONNIE CLAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-0644 W (JLB) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS [DOC. 2]

Plaintiff Connie Clay filed this action on April 5, 2019 seeking review of the denial 

of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) On the 

same day, Clay filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP App. [Doc. 2].) 

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted. For the reasons outlined 

below, the Court GRANTS the IFP application. [Doc. 2.]

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00644-W-JLB Document 4 Filed 04/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-CV-0644 W (JLB) 

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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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 

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. See 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 

(internal quotations omitted). 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). 

“[T]he greater power to waive all fees includes the lesser power to set partial fees.” 

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995).

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). District courts tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the 

filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 

396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (initially permitting Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis 

but later requiring him to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. 

Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (“[P]laintiff 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 . . . .”). Permission to proceed IFP is 

Case 3:19-cv-00644-W-JLB Document 4 Filed 04/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-CV-0644 W (JLB) 

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

“a matter of privilege and not right[,]” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 

1984), and “ ‘in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of 

litigation.’ ” Baize v. Lloyd, 2014 WL 6090324, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) 

(quoting Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 

2009)).

II. DISCUSSION

Clay has satisfied her burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to IFP status. 

According to her declaration, she is homeless. (IFP App. [Doc. 2] 2.) She receives 

$340/month in General Relief and $198/month in food stamps, for a total monthly 

income of $538 in government assistance. (Id.) She has one bank account with a $25 

balance. (Id.) She has not received any other income in the past twelve months and has 

no cash or other real estate or investments. (Id.) She does not own a vehicle. (Id.)

The filing fee for an ordinary civil action is $400. Based on the foregoing, Clay

demonstrates that she lacks the means to pay the filing fee without sacrificing the 

necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339–40. Accordingly, Clay demonstrates 

entitlement to IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00644-W-JLB Document 4 Filed 04/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-CV-0644 W (JLB) 

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

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

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

proceed IFP. [Doc. 2.] In light of the Court’s ruling on the amended IFP application, the 

Court orders as follows: 

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

on April 5, 2019 and an accompanying summons upon Defendant 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 Jill L. Burkhardt 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 

Burkhardt 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: April 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00644-W-JLB Document 4 Filed 04/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4