Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00140/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00140-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danelle Renee Scoggin
Plaintiff
Turning Point Central California
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANELLE RENEE SCOGGIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TURNING POINT CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED MARCH 2, 

2020 AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO UPDATE ADDRESS ON DOCKET

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

DANELLE RENEE SCOGGIN’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

(ECF Nos. 6, 7, 8)

On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff Danelle Scoggin (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed the 

complaint in this action along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 

2.) On January 31, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

and ordered Plaintiff to file a long form application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty 

(20) days of service. (ECF No. 4.) On March 2, 2020, because Plaintiff failed to file such 

application, the Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending the action be 

dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. (ECF No. 6.) Objections to the 

findings and recommendations were due within thirty (30) days. (Id.) On March 13, 2020, 

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation along with a completed long form 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) 

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 03/19/20 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

The objection states that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Court’s order because 

the order was mailed to the incorrect apartment unit. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff indicates her correct 

apartment unit is “P” rather than “B.” (Id.) The Court notes that it appears Plaintiff did write the 

incorrect unit “B” on the first and second page of her filed complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) A 

document from the County of Fresno, and another document filled out by Plaintiff do indicate 

that her actual unit number is “P” as Plaintiff indicates in the objection. (ECF No. 1 at 25, 40.) 

Accordingly, the Court shall direct the Clerk of the Court to update the docket to reflect 

Plaintiff’s correct unit number and the Court shall vacate the findings and recommendations 

based on this fact. 

The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. In order to proceed in 

court without prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must submit an affidavit demonstrating that 

she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The right to 

proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege and not a right. Rowland v. 

California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198 n.2 (1993); 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does not 

violate the applicant’s right to due process”). A plaintiff need not be absolutely destitute to 

proceed in forma pauperis and the application is sufficient if it states that due to his poverty he is 

unable to pay the costs and still be able to provide himself and his dependents with the 

necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 

Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed without prepayment of fees is an exercise of 

the district court’s discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015). 

In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty threshold under Section 

1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department 

of Health and Human Services. See, e.g., Paco v. Myers, No. CIV. 13-00701 ACK, 2013 WL 

6843057 (D. Haw. Dec. 26, 2013); Lint v. City of Boise, No. CV09-72-S-EJL, 2009 WL 

1149442, at *2 (D. Idaho Apr. 28, 2009) (and cases cited therein). The 2020 Poverty Guidelines 

for the 48 contiguous states provides that for a household of two the poverty level is $17,240.00, 

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 03/19/20 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

$21,720.00 for a household of three, and $26,200.00 for a household of four. See U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines for 2020, 

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited March 19, 2020). 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s long form in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 

8.) Plaintiff indicates she receives social security disability benefits in the amount of $948.00 

per month, and also states such benefits go to her mother. (ECF No. 8 at 1-2.) Plaintiff indicates 

she receives $504.00 in food stamps per month. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also states she is supposed to 

receive $348.00 per month in child support, and although unclear, it appears she contends she 

has not been receiving it regularly but does so when the other parent is working. (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff also indicates that she has two sons that rely on her for support, aged seven and 

eighteen. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims no rental or mortgage payments, and lists some expenses 

relating to food and clothing for her kids. (Id. at 4.) 

Therefore, taking only the stated income amounts and assuming a full child support 

payment, Plaintiff has declared annual income of $21,600.00. Assuming no child support 

payment, Plaintiff has an annual income of $17,424.00. Plaintiff indicates she gives her 

disability benefits to her mother, however it is unclear whether her mother is a part of the 

household and what income her mother has. Further, it is unclear whether the non-minor son has 

income. Nonetheless, the Court finds that based on the totality of the facts and circumstances 

presented, Plaintiff’s application demonstrates entitlement to proceed without prepayment of 

fees. Notwithstanding this order, the Court does not direct that service be undertaken until the 

Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its screening order.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 03/19/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s 

current address at: 3044 N. Fruit Ave., Apt. P, Fresno CA 93705;

2. The findings and recommendations issued on March 2, 2020 (ECF No. 6) is 

VACATED; and

3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 4