Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00552/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] 

that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Thus, an 

action may proceed despite a failure to prepay the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of 

privilege and not a right; denial of an in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to 

due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Weller v. Dickson, 314 

F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963)). In addition, the Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to 

proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 600-01. In 

making a determination, the Court “must be careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a 

BRYAN RUSSELL PENDERGAST,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00552 - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY HIS MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

Case 1:16-cv-00552-JLT Document 4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

litigant is presented with a Hobson’s choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or 

foregoing life’s plain necessities.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

Plaintiff attests that he is not employed and has not been employed for the past twelve months. 

(Doc. 1 at 1) However, Plaintiff reports that his wife is employed and “earns $3500 a month.” (Id.) 

He reports their monthly expenses include rent, transportation, utiltiies, student loans, medication, and 

groceries. (Id.) The income reported exceeds the expenses by more than $500 per month, and 

Plaintiff has $1,200 in a checking account. (Id. at 1-2)

ORDER

As noted above, Plaintiff has not demonstrated an inability to provide himself with life’s 

necessities while still paying court costs. Thus, the Court ORDERS: Within 21 days, Plaintiff 

SHALL show cause in writing why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. 

Plaintiff is advised that her failure to respond timely to this order will result in a 

recommendation that his motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00552-JLT Document 4 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2