Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01364/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01364-0/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

17-CV-1364 W (NLS) 

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

TIMOTHY LEE CASS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1364 W (NLS) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[DOC. 2]

Plaintiff Timothy Lee Cass filed this action on July 5, 2017, seeking review of the 

denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. 

(Compl. [Doc. 1].) He thereafter filed the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 2].) The Court decides the matter on 

the papers submitted pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons outlined below, the 

Court DENIES the IFP motion. [Doc. 2.]

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01364-W-NLS Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-1364 W (NLS) 

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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 

California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on 

other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 

to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 

statute’s requirement of indigency.”).

It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). 

To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 

which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and 

still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339 

(internal quotations omitted). At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care 

must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 

expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material 

part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 

“[T]he greater power to waive all fees includes the lesser power to set partial fees.” 

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995).

The facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, 

definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 

1981) (internal quotation omitted). District courts tend to reject IFP applications where 

the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., 

Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (initially permitting Plaintiff to 

proceed in forma pauperis but later requiring him to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 

settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (“[P]laintiff 

possessed savings of $450 and the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was 

more than sufficient to allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action . . . .”). 

Case 3:17-cv-01364-W-NLS Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-1364 W (NLS) 

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

Permission to proceed IFP is “a matter of privilege and not right[,]” Franklin v. Murphy, 

745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984), and “ ‘in forma pauperis status may be acquired and 

lost during the course of litigation.’ ” Baize v. Lloyd, 2014 WL 6090324, at *1 (S.D. 

Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) (quoting Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at 

*2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009)).

II. DISCUSSION

According to his declaration, Cass earns a gross $5529.29 per month, and his 

spouse $659.00 per month—both from retirement income. (Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 2] 2.) This 

yields a total of $6188.29/month. (See id.) He owns $350,000 equity in his home, other 

real estate worth $27,500, and two vehicles worth $500 and 700, respectively. (See id.

[Doc. 2] 3.) Cass declares that he has a sum total of $250.00 in any financial institution. 

(See id. [Doc. 2] 2.)

According to Cass’ declaration, no one relies on him or his spouse for support. 

(Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. 2] 3.) Yet Cass declares that he and his spouse spend $1,726.00 

monthly on rent or a home mortgage payment, in addition to $1,850.00 each month on 

utilities, $1,400.00 monthly on food, $450.00 monthly on clothing, and $50.00 monthly 

in taxes. (See id. [Doc. 2] 4–5.) These figures yield monthly expenses in the amount of 

$5,476.00. (See id.) 

The filing fee for an ordinary civil action is $400. It is not clear what individual 

payments might comprise a $1,850 monthly utilities budget. Nor does the motion 

elucidate why Cass and his spouse could not deduct from a $1,400 monthly food budget 

or a $450 monthly clothes budget to pay a $400 filing fee without sacrificing the 

necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339–40; 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The motion will be denied.

Case 3:17-cv-01364-W-NLS Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-1364 W (NLS) 

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

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons addressed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP. [Doc. 2.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01364-W-NLS Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4