Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02905/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02905-0/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 – 15cv2905 

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 

RICHARD THOMAS MORRIS, 

 Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-02905-BAS(NLS) 

ORDER: 

(1)GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS (ECF No. 3); AND 

(2)REFERRING TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

On December 24, 2015, Plaintiff Richard Thomas Morris (“Plaintiff”) 

commenced this action against Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) seeking judicial 

review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny him Supplemental Security Income 

benefits. On the same day, he also filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3 (“IFP Mot.”).) For the reasons outlined below, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 

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

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

506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 

Case 3:15-cv-02905-BAS-NLS Document 4 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 3
 – 2 – 15cv2905 

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 

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. 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). 

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant 

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

v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other 

grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district 

court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner 

who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from family). 

Moreover, “[i]n forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of 

litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321); see also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 

WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that a plaintiff who was initially 

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be required to pay his $120 filing fee 

out of a $900 settlement). In addition, 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) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 

F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff meets the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff was last 

Case 3:15-cv-02905-BAS-NLS Document 4 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 3
 – 3 – 15cv2905 

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 

employed in 2007 at Mass Audiology in Massachusetts, making $12 per hour. (IFP 

Mot. at ¶ 2.) He currently receives $335 per month in General Assistance and $194 

per month in food stamps, and is on Section 8 housing assistance. (Id. at ¶ 3.) He 

does not have a checking or savings account, and does not own any automobiles, real 

estate, stocks, bonds, securities, or anything else of value. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) His current 

debts include $230 in credit card debt. (Id. at ¶ 9.) His monthly expenses include 

$39 per month for cable and phone and $25 per month for laundry. (Id.) Plaintiff 

has no dependents. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Consequently, the Court finds that requiring Plaintiff 

to pay the court filing fees would impair his ability to obtain the necessities of life. 

See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed 

IFP (ECF No. 3). However, if it appears at any time in the future that Plaintiff’s 

financial picture has improved for any reason, the Court will direct Plaintiff to pay 

the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. This includes any recovery Plaintiff may 

realize from this suit or others, and any assistance Plaintiff may receive from 

family or the government.

Additionally, the Court REFERS all matters arising in this case to United 

States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for a Report & Recommendation in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1). If the parties 

choose to file motions in this case, they shall contact Judge Stormes’ chambers to 

secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 8, 2016 

 

Case 3:15-cv-02905-BAS-NLS Document 4 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3