Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02859/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02859-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Linda A. Casazza
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

1

 Docket No. 3.

2

 Docket No. 6.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA A. CASAZZA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant. /

No. C07-02859 MJJ

ORDER MODIFYING PREVIOUS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Linda Casazza’s (“Plaintiff”) Request for Leave to Proceed in

forma pauperis.1 On June 19, 2007, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s request to proceed

in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint because it was not timely filed.2

 On August

1, 2007, Plaintiff filed documentation in the form of a challenge to the Court’s finding that the

Complaint was timely filed. Upon reconsideration, the Court’s June 19, 2007 Order denying

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is modified. In addition, because Plaintiff’s affidavit

shows that her income exceeds her expenses by a sufficient amount to pay her court fees, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed in forma pauperis WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

A. Timing for Requesting Judicial Review and Instituting a Civil Action

Plaintiff’s Complaint states a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). An individual may

obtain review “of any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to

Case 3:07-cv-02859-VRW Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 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

which he was a party . . . by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of

notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may

allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In calculating the time limit, the date of the receipt of notice of denial

of request for review shall be presumed to be five days after the date of the notice. 20 C.F.R. §

422.210(c) (emphasis added). The Appeals Council denied review of Plaintiff’s request for review

of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits on March 30,

2007. (Compl. at 8.) This denial constituted a final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §

422.210(a). The Court’s prior Order did not account for the presumption that notice is received five

days after the date of the notice of denial. Therefore, because Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed within

65 days of the Appeals Council’s notice of denial date, the Complaint was timely. Plaintiff’s

challenge to the Court’s prior Order drew this presumption to the Court’s attention. The Court’s

prior Order is, therefore, modified by this Order. 

B. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor[e], by a

person who submits an affidavit” that they are “unable to pay such costs or give security therefore.” 

The applicant must submit an affidavit that the plaintiff is unable to pay court fees. Id. 

A court must dismiss the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if at any time

the court determines that the action is frivolous, fails to state a clam on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C §

1915(e)(2)(B). The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction over the action. 

In her affidavit, Plaintiff states that she receives $336 per month in welfare payments and 

$138 in food stamps, for a total of $474. (Plf.’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff also states that she has no monthly expenses. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does, however, report a

total of $19,952.71 in tax debt, owed to the Franchise Tax Board, City of Oakland, City of

Sacramento, and Yolo County. (Id. ¶ 9.) This tax debt is more than forty times Plaintiff’s monthly

income. Even in the unlikely case that Plaintiff truly has no monthly expenses, the magnitude of her

tax debt may prevent Plaintiff from prepaying fees and costs and from giving security. Plaintiff does

Case 3:07-cv-02859-VRW Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 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

not, however, state the monthly amount that she is required to pay toward her tax debt. The Court,

therefore, does not have sufficient information to determine if Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds

the court fees. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

shall, within 30 days, file an amended in forma pauperis request that includes the monthly amount

Plaintiff is required to pay toward her tax debt. Failure to file a timely amended request or pay the

filing fee will result in dismissal of this case. 

C. Conclusion

The Court therefore modifies that June 19, 2007 Order, and finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint

was timely filed in this Court. The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis with LEAVE TO AMEND. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02859-VRW Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 3