Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00930/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00930-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne Barnhart
Defendant
Jerry Flagg
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY FLAGG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY 

Defendant. /

No. C 06-00930 SBA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jerry Flagg's ("Plaintiff") complaint and

application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Application"). Having considered Plaintiff's complaint

and IFP Application, and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Application

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

BACKGROUND

On February 13 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint captioned "Appeal of Denial of

Supplemental Security Income Disability Benefits." On the same day, Plaintiff filed an application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (the "IFP Application"). 

LEGAL STANDARD

The benefit of proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP") is a privilege, not a right. Franklin v.

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). To obtain this privilege, a plaintiff must demonstrate,

to the Court's satisfaction, his or her inability to pay the requisite fees and costs. See Williams v.

Marshall, 795 F.Supp. 978, 979 (N.D. Cal. 1992). A statement of poverty is sufficient if it demonstrates

that a plaintiff cannot pay court costs and still be able to provide himself or herself with the necessities

of life. Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de

Case 4:06-cv-00930-SBA Document 4 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). The facts concerning his or her poverty must be stated with

some "particularity, definiteness and certainty." See 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 his request to proceed IFP where he is unable or unwilling to verify his poverty. Id. If the court

determines that a plaintiff's allegation of poverty is untrue, it shall dismiss the case. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). 

ANALYSIS

Here, Plaintiff states that he is unemployed, receives either social security income or welfare

payments in the amount of $336 per month, and incurs expenses totaling $332 per month. However,

the Court also notes that Plaintiff is represented by a retained attorney. Plaintiff's IFP application does

not explain how Plaintiff is able to afford retained counsel and yet is unable to pay the filing fees and

costs associated with his case. Thus, based on the information that Plaintiff has provided, the Court is

unable to conclude that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he cannot pay court costs and still

be able to provide himself with the necessities of life. However, if Plaintiff still wishes to proceed in

forma pauperis, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended IFP application that

addresses the Court's concerns and clearly and consistently sets forth the circumstances of his financial

status.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's IFP Application is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. No later than twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must either pay the

requisite filing fee or file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis that addresses the

deficiencies identified in this Order and clearly and consistently sets forth the circumstances of his

financial status. Plaintiff is expressly warned that, if he does not comply with the deadlines set forth in

this Order, his case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to him. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 28, 2006 ___________________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-00930-SBA Document 4 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Case 4:06-cv-00930-SBA Document 4 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3