Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00979/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00979-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:206 Social Security Benefits

---

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

GABRIEL BERRY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-0979 W (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2]

AND REFERRING TO

MAGISTRATE FOR REPORT

& RECOMMENDATION

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff Gabriel Berry (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking

review of the denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income benefits under the Social Security Act. Along with the complaint,

Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2]. 

I. DISCUSSION

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

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

other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“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.”).

-1- 13cv0979W

Case 3:13-cv-00979-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/13 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

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. 

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, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares 

v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse

discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary

and $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal.

1995) (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay

$120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130

(E.D. Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of

$450 and the magistrate correctly determined thatthis amountwas more than sufficient

to allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, 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 the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on

the current record, Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. §

1915. According to his declaration, Plaintiff does not have sufficient income to support

himself, and lives with his mother, from whom he receives financial assitance. Plaintiff

has also shown that he does not currently have any possessions of significant value. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s IFP motion is GRANTED. 

-2- 13cv0979W

Case 3:13-cv-00979-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/13 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

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed IFP [Doc. 2]. In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, the Court orders

as follows:

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

on April 24, 2013 and anaccompanying summons upon Defendants

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

service shall be advanced by the United States.

2. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided

by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, 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)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(c ). 

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

to secure scheduling, filing, and hearing dates. All motion(s) for summary judgment

must be filed and served no later than 120 days after the Government files its answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 25, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

-3- 13cv0979W

Case 3:13-cv-00979-W-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/13 Page 3 of 3