Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01370/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01370-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES OSKAR HILDINGER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 13-CV-1370 W (WVG) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [DOC. 2] AND

REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE

FOR REPORT &

RECOMMENDATION

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

On June 12, 2013, Plaintiff James Oskar Hildinger (“Plaintiff”) commenced this

action against Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security. Along with

the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the

reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS the IFP. 

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) (“[28 U.S.C. §] 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 IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335

U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948); see also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir.

- 1 - 13c1370w

Case 3:13-cv-01370-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 06/19/13 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

1995) (“the filing fee, while discretionary, should not take the prisoner’s last dollar.”). 

Rather, to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an affidavit need only state

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.” Adkins, 335 U.S.

at 339. At the same time, however, the court must “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., Olivares, 59 F.3d

at 112 (district court did not abuse discretion in requiring partial fee payment from

prisoner who consistently spent $35 a month on “comforts” such as candy and name

brand toiletries from the prison commissary); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D.

Pa. 1982) (IFP application denied: “plaintiff 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”).

Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that Plaintiff

has demonstrated that he is unable to pay the fees required to pursue his complaint. 

According to his declaration, Plaintiff receives approximately $419 a month income, 

to support himself and his wife. (IFP ¶¶ 3, 8.) The $350 filing fee would constitute a

substantial amount of Plaintiff’s monthly income. Consequently, the Court finds that

requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees would impair his ability to obtain the

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

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

pauperis [Doc. 2.], and ORDERS as follows: 

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed on

June 12, 2013 and an accompanying summons upon Defendants as

directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall

- 2 - 13c1370w

Case 3:13-cv-01370-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 06/19/13 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

be advanced by the United States.

2. Defendants shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by

the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3. If it appears at any time in the future the 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.

4. The Court hereby REFERS all matters arising in this case to United States

Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a Report & Recommendation in

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

seek to file motions, they shall contact the chambers of Judge Gallo to

secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13c1370w

Case 3:13-cv-01370-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 06/19/13 Page 3 of 3