Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00634/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00634-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDOLPH ANTHONY DUBORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-634-KJN

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and 

ORDER

(ECF No. 2)

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without the 

prepayment of fees and costs, also referred to as in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 

(ECF No. 2.) Under this section, the court may authorize the commencement of an action 

“without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by a person that is unable to pay such fees or 

provide security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Presently, a filing fee of $400.00 is required to 

commence a civil action in this court. 

The affidavit in support of the motion indicates that plaintiff has a monthly income of 

approximately $3,100, i.e., $37,200 annually, and has $4,000 in a checking or savings account. 

(See ECF No. 2.) According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the 

current poverty guideline for a household of 1 (not residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $12,760.00. 

1 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15).

Case 2:20-cv-00634-KJM-KJN Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 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

27

28

2

See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. Thus, plaintiff’s gross household income is over 

300% of the 2020 poverty guideline. Accordingly, the court cannot find that plaintiff is unable to 

pay. To be sure, the court is sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff does not have a large income, 

and that plaintiff also has several expenses to contend with. However, numerous litigants in this 

court have significant monthly expenditures, and may have to make difficult choices as to which 

expenses to incur, which expenses to reduce or eliminate, and how to apportion their income 

between such expenses and litigating an action in federal court. Such difficulties in themselves 

do not amount to indigency. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED. 

Plaintiff has 14 days to object to these findings and recommendations.2 See Tripati v. 

Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all parties, magistrate judge lacks 

authority to issue dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status). If plaintiff does not object 

to the substance of the undersigned’s findings, plaintiff shall instead either: (A) pay the applicable 

filing fee; or (B) file a statement of non-opposition to these findings and recommendations and 

concurrent request for a payment plan or for an extension of time to pay the fee. Failure to take 

any action may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the 

Court randomly assign a district judge to this action.

Dated: March 27, 2020

dubo.634

2 Objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 2:20-cv-00634-KJM-KJN Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2