Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02228/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02228-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN EVETTE WADE Civil No. 14cv2228-LAB (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 3]

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff Carolyn Evette Wade (“Plaintiff”) filed a

complaint seeking judicial review of Defendant’s denial of disability benefits under the

Social Security Act. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3.) 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, are required to pay a filing

fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of a

suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement

of all assets, showing that she is unable to pay filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). In

the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support of the

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the

- 1 - 05cv0638

Case 3:14-cv-02228-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 10/09/14 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

required filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177.

Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is also

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the

complaint is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Having

conducted its initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds it sufficient to survive

the sua sponte screening provisions of § 1915(e)(2). 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP is GRANTED.

2. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint, summons,

and this Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP upon Defendant as

directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall

be advanced by the United States. 

3. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by the

applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 9, 2014

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 05cv0638

Case 3:14-cv-02228-LAB-DHB Document 5 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 2