Opinion
1:24-cv-00533-JLT-BAM
06-25-2024
KULDIP SINGH, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED
(DOC. 8)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Kuldip Singh (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, seeks review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff initiated this action on May 6, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) On May 7, 2024, the Court issued an order directing the Clerk of Court to randomly assign a district judge and issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs be denied and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. 4.) On May 24, 2024, the district judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs without prejudice. (Doc. 7.) That order directed Plaintiff to either file a long form in forma pauperis application or pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action within 30 days following service of the order. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a long form in forma pauperis application on June 24, 2024. (Doc. 8.)
According to Plaintiff's application, he receives monthly retirement income from Social Security in the amount of $812.00 per month. (Doc. 8 at 2.) His household also receives $2,320.00 per month from his wife's income. (Id.) This amounts to an annual income of $37,584 ($812 x 12 months = $9,744; $2,320 x 12 months = $27,840; $9,744 + $27,840 = $37,584). Plaintiff lists only himself and his wife as dependents. (Id. at 3.)
“To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, applicants must demonstrate that because of poverty, they cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves, and any dependents, with the necessities of life.” Soldani v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-cv-00040, 2019 WL 2160380, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019). Many courts look to the federal poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a guidepost in evaluating in forma pauperis applications. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004); Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv-01163-LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty guidelines to in forma pauperis application). For a family or household of two, the 2024 poverty guideline is $20,440. See U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited June 25, 2024).
Having considered Plaintiff's application, the Court finds that he has not made the showing required by section 1915 that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action. Plaintiff's household estimated annual income is nearly twice that of the federal poverty guidelines. (Doc. 8 at 2-3.) In light of this income, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee while also providing for the necessities of life.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff s long form application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 8) be DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $405.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action.
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.