Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02432/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02432-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

SOPHIA WONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 08-02432 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 3]

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff Sophia Wong’s Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (the “Application”) [Docket No. 3]. For the reasons discussed below, the Application is

denied with 30 days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

On May 12, 2008, Wong filed a Complaint and the Application. See Docket Nos. 1, 3. 

Wong claims she is mentally disabled and receives Social Security disability benefits. Compl.

at 8:2-5. She also claims her benefits go to a payee, whom she has named as a defendant, who did

not pay her rent for 15 months, resulting in her eviction by her landlord, the San Francisco Housing

Authority (the “SFHA”), in Superior Court case CUD-08-625494. Id. at 8:11-20, 9:17, 11:24-25. 

As a result, she alleges she is now homeless. Id. at 1:1, 10:3-6, 10:15-16. 

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Demonstrating In Forma Pauperis Status

The benefit of proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). As 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) states, in part: 

Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

///

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

includes a statement of all assets such person possesses that the person is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

A petitioner need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of this statute.” Adkins v.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948); Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th

Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 896 (1960). An affidavit is sufficient if it states a person cannot

pay or provide security for court costs and still provide himself or herself and any dependents with

the necessities of life. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (citing Adkins, 335

U.S. at 339). The facts concerning the applicant’s poverty must be stated with some “particularity,

definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). The

Court has the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial status and to deny their

request to proceed in forma pauperis where they are unable or unwilling to verify their poverty. Id. 

If a court determines a plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue, it shall dismiss their case. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

II. Claims Review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also authorizes a district court to dismiss a claim filed in forma

pauperis “at any time” if it determines: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is

frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se pleadings

must be liberally construed. Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

When reviewing a complaint, however, a court does not accept as true unreasonable inferences or

conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations. See W. Mining Council v. Watt,

643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Miranda v. Clark County, Nev., 279 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.

2002) (“conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim”); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.

2001); McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) (“conclusory allegations

without more are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim”). Leave to

amend is properly denied “where the amendment would be futile.” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys.,

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

957 F.2d 655, 659 (9th Cir. 1992). But if a plaintiff’s complaint is found deficient and an

amendment could possibly cure the deficiency, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to

amend. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

I. The Application

The Court has reviewed Wong’s Application and found it unsigned. See Application at 4. 

Further, it is incomplete. See id. And, it contains irrelevant argument. See id. The Court thus

cannot determine whether Wong is able to pay the Court’s filing fee and provide herself with the

necessities of life. 

II. The Claims

As the Application is defective, the Court does not reach Wong’s claims.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff Sophia Wong’s Application for Leave to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 3]. The Court also orders Wong to: (1) file an amended

application within 30 days; or (2) pay the requisite filing fee within 30 days; or (3) be dismissed for

failure to prosecute. The Court warns Wong, again, if within 30 days she does not either file an

amended application or pay the requisite filing fee, the Court will dismiss this matter without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 14, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WONG et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRUE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-02432 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on May 14, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Sophia Wong

1230 Market Street, #731

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dated: May 14, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4