Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00533/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00533-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Kuldip Singh
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

KULDIP SINGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-00533-JLT-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS WITH A 

MODIFICATION, DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT 

OF FEES AND COSTS, AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE A LONG FORM IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION OR PAY 

THE FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

(Docs. 2, 4)

Kuldip Singh, proceeding with counsel, commenced this Social Security action on May 6, 

2024. (Doc. 1.) Concurrent with his complaint, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.)

On May 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

that recommended Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs be 

denied and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this 

action. (Doc. 4.) The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff had not made the showing 

required by section 1915 that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action, noting that 

Plaintiff’s household estimated annual income was $37,584, nearly twice that of the federal 

poverty guidelines, and there was no indication that Plaintiff was unable to pay the filing fee 

Case 1:24-cv-00533-JLT-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/24/24 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

while also providing for the necessities of life. (Id. at 2.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on May 7, 2024, and notified 

Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 4 at 2.) The Court also informed 

Plaintiff that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 2-3, quoting Wilkerson 

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed and the time to do so 

has expired.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes that the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis with the following 

modification. Because Plaintiff has not yet submitted or been directed to file a long form in 

forma pauperis application, dismissal will be without prejudice to the submission of a long form 

application if Plaintiff reasonably believes doing so will demonstrate indigency. Accordingly, the 

Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 7, 2024 (Doc. 4) are 

ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. Within 30 days following service of this order, Plaintiff shall either file a long 

form in forma pauperis application or pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed 

with this action.

4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action

without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00533-JLT-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 2