Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01322/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01322-0/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON NORTHRUP,

Plaintiff, CIV S-08-1322 KJM 

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER AND

Commissioner of Social Security, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Plaintiff has requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

pauperis. Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the complaint, Plaintiff, an incarcerated person proceeding pro se, seeks relief

directing the Commissioner of Social Security to pay plaintiff Supplemental Security Income

“SSI” monthly benefits of fifty dollars. As an incarcerated person, plaintiff is not entitled to SSI. 

See Butler v. Apfel, 144 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 1998) (no constitutional infirmity in statute

disallowing payment of social security benefits to incarcerated persons); see also Dep’t Health &

Human Serv. v. Chater, 163 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, this action should be

dismissed.

Case 2:08-cv-01322-JAM -KJM Document 4 Filed 06/20/08 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

2

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. Given the lack of merit in

plaintiff’s action, the appointment of counsel is not warranted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 20, 2008. 

006

northrop.ss

Case 2:08-cv-01322-JAM -KJM Document 4 Filed 06/20/08 Page 2 of 2