Opinion
24-cv-00103-DKW-WRP
03-11-2024
RICHARD JAMES BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), the Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing.
Derrick K. Watson Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiff Richard Bailey moves for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in this action appealing a decision by the Social Security Administration (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 4.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), federal courts may authorize the commencement of suit without prepayment of fees or securities by a person who submits an affidavit demonstrating the inability to pay. Although Section 1915(a) does not require an IFP applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), he must nevertheless “allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The affidavit is sufficient where it alleges that the applicant “cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Here, Bailey has satisfied the requirements of Section 1915(a). In his IFP Application, Bailey explains that his monthly income consists of $1,200 in take-home pay and $173 in food stamps. Dkt. No. 4 at 1. Although he has $2,200 in a checking or savings account, he has no items or assets of value. Id. at 2. Finally, the monthly expenses for his rent, cell phone, food, clothing, and vehicle total $1,150. Id.
Bailey additionally lists his gross pay as being $18.48 a month. Dkt. No. 4 at 1. As this amount is facially implausible-particularly given his take-home pay-this appears to be a typographical error. Nevertheless, given Bailey's take-home pay, savings, and expenses, any uncertainty as the amount of his gross pay does not affect the Court's decision.
More granularly, Bailey's monthly expenses include $250 for rent, $75 for his cell phone, $150 for gas, $75 for car insurance, $200 for food, $100 for clothing, and $300 for car repairs and oil changes. Dkt. No. 4 at 2.
As such, once Bailey's monthly expenses are taken into account, he would have $223 per month in income-an amount significantly less than the $405 filing fee. In light of Bailey's limited income and savings, the Court therefore finds that he lacks the ability to pay the filing fee for this action while still being able to afford the necessities of life. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234-36. Bailey's IFP Application, Dkt. No. 4, is therefore GRANTED.
Based on Bailey's take-home pay, his income falls below the poverty threshold identified in the Department of Health and Human Services' (“HHS”) 2024 Guidelines for Hawai‘i. See HHS Poverty Guidelines, available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines.
Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions provides that plaintiffs are not required to serve summons and complaints in actions for review of social security decisions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Soc. Sec. R. 3. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the Court to direct service of Bailey's Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.