Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00018/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with this action for judicial review of the decision 

to deny her application for Social Security benefits. (Docs. 1, 2) The Court may authorize the 

commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an affidavit that 

includes a statement of all assets such person . . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such 

fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Thus, an action may proceed despite a failure to 

prepay the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez 

v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999).

The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of 

privilege and not a right; denial of an in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to 

due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Weller v. Dickson, 314 

F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963)). In addition, the Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to 

proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 600-01. In 

BARBARA L. CHAMP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-0018- JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY HER MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

Case 1:20-cv-00018-CDB Document 6 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 2
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

making a determination, the Court “must be careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a 

litigant is presented with a Hobson’s choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or 

foregoing life’s plain necessities.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

Plaintiff indicates that she last worked for Account Central Tech in May 2015, and her current 

monthly income is $782 for retirement. (Doc. 2 at 2) In addition, Plaintiff reports that she has $150 in 

a checking account, $108 in a savings account, and $5,600 in a money market account. (Id.) 

However, Plaintiff also reports she has Chevron stock valued at $70,365 and National Fuel stock 

valued at $21,043.03. Thus, the information provided related to the estimated stock value does not 

support the conclusion that Plaintiff is unable to provide for herself with life’s necessities while still 

paying the Court costs. 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: Within 21 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause 

in writing why the motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to respond timely to this order will result in a 

recommendation that her motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00018-CDB Document 6 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 2