Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00563/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00563-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCINE HUERTA,

Plaintiff.

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00563-SVK 

ORDER DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON 

APPEAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 31, 35

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF 31 (“IFP 

Application”).

1

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a district court may authorize the 

commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff 

cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 

provides that a party may make a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). If 

the Court grants the motion, the party may proceed on appeal without prepaying or giving security 

for fees and costs. Id. at 24(a)(2). The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed 

in forma pauperis before the district court and ordered Plaintiff to pay a reduced filing fee of $100. 

ECF 6; ECF 11. 

When ruling on an in forma pauperis application, three general principles apply. First,

proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case is a privilege or favor granted by the government.

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198 (1993). 

Second, the statute reads that the Court “may authorize the commencement” of an action. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Thus, the grant, denial or other decision concerning an in forma pauperis

 

1 Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF 35. Plaintiff’s 

second application is duplicative of her first, and therefore denied as moot. 

Case 5:18-cv-00563-SVK Document 36 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

application requires the court to exercise discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31

(1992). Third, the ability to pay does not require that plaintiffs contribute their “last dollar” or

“make themselves and their dependents wholly destitute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 

Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 

In order for a court to authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of

the filing fee, a person must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all the person 

possesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). An affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient if it 

indicates “that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able 

to provide himself and dependents’ with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. 

“Although pauper status does not require absolute destitution, the question is whether the court

costs can be paid without undue hardship.” Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

21 F. App. 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate,

Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988)).

This Court’s filing fee for a notice of appeal is $505. Although Plaintiff indicates she is 

not currently employed and has no income, her spouse’s gross wages are $38,000 (net wages are 

$30,000). ECF 31 at ¶¶ 1–3.2 The 2019 U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines for a family of three 

(Plaintiff lists one dependent child on her IFP Application) is $21,330. See Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Poverty Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/povertyguidelines (last visited Mar. 11, 2019). Annual net wages of $30,000 amount to $2,500 per 

month. Plaintiff’s listed monthly expenses for rent, food, utilities and clothing total $2,200, and 

she lists an additional $100 in debts. ECF 31 at ¶ 8. This monthly net income minus necessary 

expenses and debt payments leaves a balance of approximately $200 per month. Plaintiff also has 

$800 in her bank account. Id. ¶ 7.

Therefore, the listed family income appears sufficient to require payment of at least a

portion of the court filing fee without depriving Plaintiff of the ability to pay for necessities. See

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a district court’s power to

 

2 The Court assumes for purposes of the IFP Application that the wages listed are annual, and not 

monthly as indicated in the IFP Application. 

Case 5:18-cv-00563-SVK Document 36 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

require partial payment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (citing Alexander v. Carson Adult High

School, 9 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993)). The Court previously granted Plaintiff the opportunity to 

file a declaration to rebut this conclusion by informing the Court that she does not have access to 

her husband’s income and/or her husband has additional debts that are not apparent from the IFP 

Application, which reduce the amount of disposable income that is available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

chose not to file such a declaration and instead paid the partial filing fee ordered by the Court. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED IN 

PART. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay a $100 to the District Court as the fee for filing a 

notice of appeal. The Court waives the remaining balance as well as any other additional fees and 

costs on appeal. The clerk shall serve notice of this order forthwith to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00563-SVK Document 36 Filed 03/11/19 Page 3 of 3