Opinion
Case No.: 17cv1406-MMA (NLS)
07-14-2017
TAM PHAN NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 2]
On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff Tam Phan Nguyen filed this social security appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the denial of his application for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Doc. No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.
DISCUSSION
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). "To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right." Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). 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). But "the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar." Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether he should be granted IFP status. On Plaintiff's application, Plaintiff does not adequately respond to question 2, part b, which requests that he list "the date of [his] last employment, the amount of [his] take-home salary or wages and pay period and the name and address of [his] last employer." See Doc. No. 2. Instead, Plaintiff only writes "about 2010 or 2011, not sure." See Doc. No. 2. Also, Plaintiff does not respond fully to question 3, which requires that applicants respond either "yes" or "no" to every subpart. Further, Plaintiff submitted an outdated version of the IFP application form. If Plaintiff wishes to file a renewed motion to proceed IFP, Plaintiff must use the updated form, which he may access on the Court's website on its "Forms" page or by visiting the Clerk of Court's office in person. Plaintiff must answer every question.
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Attorneys/Lists/Forms/Attachments/59/AO239_Application%20to%20P roceed%20Without%20Prepayment.pdf
The Clerk's Office is located at 333 West Broadway, Suite 420, San Diego, California, 92101. --------
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. Doc. No. 2; see Civ. L.R. 3.2. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a renewed motion for IFP containing the requisite information regarding his ability to pay the costs of commencing this action. If Plaintiffs fail to timely submit payment or a renewed motion for IFP, this case shall be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: July 14, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge