Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02710/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02710-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16cv2710-JLS (AGS)

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

HENRY L. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS 

COUNCIL,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2710-JLS (AGS)

ORDER 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT; AND 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 2, 3)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Henry L. Clark’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.”, ECF No. 2.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Appoint Counsel. (“Counsel Mot.”, ECF No. 3.)

IFP MOTION

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, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 

the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:16-cv-02710-JLS-AGS Document 4 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv2710-JLS (AGS)

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

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 

may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party 

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that his total 

monthly income is $61,309.64. (IFP Mot. 2,1 ECF No. 2.) This may have been an error of 

calculation, and the Court finds it is more plausible that Plaintiff meant he receives over 

$60,000 annually, and roughly $5,500 monthly. (Id.) He does not expect any major changes 

to his monthly income or expenses in the next twelve months. (Id. at 5.) He also lists two 

cars as assets, totaling a value of roughly $12,500.00. (Id. at 3.) Thus, while Plaintiff claims 

to have no money in any bank account, (id. at 2), it appears Plaintiff can pay the requisite 

filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and 

DISMISSES THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court also DENIES AS 

MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff may submit a copy 

of this order along with the requisite fee on or before March 3, 2017 to have the case 

reopened.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017

 

1 Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.

Case 3:16-cv-02710-JLS-AGS Document 4 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2