Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03105/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Mary Louise Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-03105-CSK

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 

PROCEED FORMA PAUPERIS 

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff Mary Louise Williams requests leave to proceed without prepayment of 

the filing fee, in forma pauperis (“IFP”), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

1 (ECF No. 2.) However, 

Plaintiff’s affidavit is incomplete and does not contain all the information needed for the 

Court to determine whether this motion should be granted. Specifically, in responding to 

question 2, Plaintiff states that she receives gross pay or wages of $1,182 and takehome pay or wages of $1,182 per month, but she has not included her employer’s name 

or address. In question 3, Plaintiff checked the box “yes” that she received income from 

rent payments, interest, or dividends income in the past 12 months. However, Plaintiff 

has not described the source of that income, the amount received, and what she expects 

1 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15) and Appx. A subsection (j).

Case 2:24-cv-03105-CSK Document 3 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 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

2

to receive in the future. Instead, Plaintiff lists her expenses. In response to question 6 

about expenses, Plaintiff states that “there are not anything that I have in my name so 

far.” Additionally, in response to the question about whether Plaintiff has any debts or 

financial obligations, she says that “I don’t have any money at all.” It’s unclear whether 

Plaintiff actually receives income from rent payments, interest, or dividends as indicated, 

or if she mistakenly checked “yes” to identify her expenses.

As outlined above, the Court needs clarification about whether Plaintiff has 

alleged poverty with “particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a complete

affidavit responding to all questions, including but not limited to the following 

information:

a. Plaintiff’s employer’s name and address (if any) in response to question 2;

b. The source and amount of any income Plaintiff received in the past 12 

months in response to question 3;

c. Plaintiff’s monthly expenses in response to question 6; and 

d. Any debts or financial obligations that Plaintiff owes (if any) in response to 

question 8; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank copy of the 

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

Dated: November 21, 2024

5, will.3105.24

Case 2:24-cv-03105-CSK Document 3 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 2