Opinion
24-cv-1875-DDL
10-21-2024
LISA KAY D., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[DKT. NO. 2]
HON. DAVID D. LESHNER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 16, 2024, Lisa Kay D. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis (the “IFP Application”), which is presently before the Court. Dkt. No. 2.
This Court may “authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by any person who demonstrates his or her inability to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) . A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Instead, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id.
Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, and footnotes are omitted from citations.
Here, Plaintiff declares she is unemployed and last worked in 2015, has no income, and has $12,000 in credit card debt. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. She represents that she has $200 in a checking account, a 2001 Toyota Solara worth about $500, a 2002 Toyota Solara worth about $500 (it is unclear whether both cars are held in her name), and a townhome worth between $500,000 and $600,000 with an $85,000 mortgage remaining. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff further represents that her monthly expenses include: (1) mortgage costs of $1,250; (2) utility costs of $100 to $150; (3) car insurance costs of $120; (4) gasoline costs of $100; (5) food costs of $300 to $400; and (5) debt repayment costs of $300. Id. at 2. Her total monthly expenses thus amount to at least $2,100. Plaintiff affords these expenses only through borrowing money from her parents. Id. Importantly, motions to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted when a plaintiff's application demonstrates that he or she cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life “because of his [or her] poverty,” not because of his or her parents' poverty. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339 (emphasis added); see also Ahern v. Kijakazi, No. 2:23-CV-02085-DJA, 2023 WL 9111316, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 21, 2023) (granting an IFP application where the plaintiff's only sources of income were public assistance programs and his parents); Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV-1483 W (RBM), 2021 WL 6012625, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021) (same).
Based upon the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee and GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application.
Where the Court grants a litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must also screen the complaint pursuant to Title 28, Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of the United States Code. The statute requires dismissal where a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See id. Rule 2(b) of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions sets forth additional pleading requirements for a Social Security plaintiff's complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. SUPP SS Rule 2(b)(1)(A)-(E). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and finds it satisfies these pleading requirements, states a plausible claim for relief, and is neither frivolous nor malicious. Accordingly, the Complaint survives screening, and the action may proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.