Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02239/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02239-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

11cv2239

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIKI T. HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-2239-L(BLM)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MOTION [DOC. 3], AND

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff Niki T. Herrera commenced this social security action. 

(Doc. 1.) On the same day, she filed a motion seeking in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. (Doc.

3.) For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES 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), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194

(1993) (holding that “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. 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

Case 3:11-cv-02239-L-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 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

11cv2239

2

himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. 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, “in 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). 

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

meet 28 U.S.C. § 1915’s requirements for IFP status. Plaintiff is unemployed. (IFP Mot. at ¶ 2

[Doc. 3].) However, she receives money from her husband who earns $1,600 per month, and an

undisclosed amount from her daughter, who receives Social Security Disability payments. (Id.

at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has a checking account, but fails to state its present balance. Plaintiff also fails

to indicate whether she has a savings account or owns an automobile. (Id. at ¶¶ 4–6.) 

Furthermore, she does not indicate any expenses or debts. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.) Consequently, the

Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees would not impair her ability to

obtain the necessities of life. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.

//

Case 3:11-cv-02239-L-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 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

11cv2239

3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 3), and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to this order,

Plaintiff is granted 60 days’ leave to pay the filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding her financial status. IF

PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING HER

POVERTY, SHE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02239-L-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/11/11 Page 3 of 3