“permission to proceed in 5 forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does 6 not violate the applicant’s right to due process”
How later courts described this case
- “permission to proceed in 5 forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does 6 not violate the applicant’s right to due process”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ADAME Case No. 1:23-cv-01129-CDB (SS)
DE DIAZ,
12 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
Plaintiff, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
13 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
v. ISSUE SUMMONS, SCHEDULING
14 ORDER, AND CONSENT OR REQUEST
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL FOR REASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS
15 SECURITY,
(Doc. 4)
16 Defendant.
17
18 Maria De Los Angeles Adame De Diaz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action on
19 July 28, 2023, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
20 denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead filed an
21 application to proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2).
22 Plaintiff’s application did not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine whether
23 Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP, and on August 2, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a
24 long form IFP application. (Doc. 3). On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a long form IFP
25 application. (Doc. 4). Upon review of the long form IFP application, and the pleadings in her
26 complaint, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
27 I. Proceeding in forma pauperis
In order to proceed in court without prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must submit an
1 affidavit demonstrating that she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. §
2 1915(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege and not a
3 right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198
4 n.2 (1993); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“permission to proceed in
5 forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does
6 not violate the applicant’s right to due process”) (emphasis added). A plaintiff need not be
7 absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis and the application is sufficient if it states that
8 due to her poverty, she is unable to pay the costs and still be able to provide herself and her
9 dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,
10 339 (1948). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed without prepayment of fees is an
11 exercise of the district court’s discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir.
12 2015).
13 II. Screening Requirement
14 When a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the
15 complaint and shall dismiss the complaint, or portion thereof, if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails
16 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or…seeks monetary relief from a defendant
17 who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b) & (e)(2). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous
18 “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
19 there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
20 25, 32-33 (1992).
21 III. Pleading Standards
22 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
23 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and…a demand for the relief sought,
24 which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
25 purpose of the complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims, and the grounds upon
26 which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). As set forth
27 by the Supreme Court, Rule 8:
1 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
2 will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.
3
4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
5 Vague and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673
6 F.2 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Iqbal Court clarified further,
7 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
8 544, 570 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
9 liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin
to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
10 defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely
consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility
11 a nd plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”
12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume their truth
13 and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are
14 not entitled to the same assumption of truth. (Id.) The Court may grant leave to amend a complaint
15 to the extent deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203
16 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
17 IV. Discussion and Analysis
18 Plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying
19 disability benefits. (Doc. 1). The Court may have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
20 which provides:
21 Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing to
which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review
22 of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to
him of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow.
23 Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial
district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business…The
24 court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a
judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of
25 Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
26 Id. Except as provided by statute, “[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be
27 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
1 decision on June 15, 2023, after which Plaintiff had 60 days, plus five days for delivery by mail, to
2 file a civil action. (Doc. 1 ⁋ 2). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint is timely. Plaintiff states that she resides
3 in Lamont, California, County of Kern. (Id. at ⁋ 4). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this
4 action.
5 A. Plaintiff’s IFP Application
6 In assessing whether an applicant’s income level meets the poverty threshold under
7 Section 1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the
8 Department of Health and Human Services. See, e.g., Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No.
9 1:18-CV-01163-LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018); Calderon v.
10 Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:22-CV-00890-SAB, 2022 WL 3088494, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
11 July 27, 2022); Trimm v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:22-CV-00663-BAM, 2022 WL
12 2239701, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2022) (collecting cases). The 2023 Poverty Guidelines for the
13 48 contiguous states provides that the poverty threshold for a household of two is $19,720.1
14 In the originally filed application, Plaintiff represented that she is not employed and last
15 worked in 2017. Plaintiff represented that she received income from “other sources” but did not
16 specify what those sources were or how much she earned. (Doc. 2).
17 In the newly filed long form application, Plaintiff represents that she: (1) receives monthly
18 income of $2,084.00 from her and her spouse’s retirement; (2) has $105 in a checking account; (3)
19 has $2,600.00 in a savings account; (4) owns a GMC Terrain 2019 valued at $20,000.00; and (5)
20 owns a Ford Escape 2001 valued at $800.00. (Doc. 4 p. 2).
21 Plaintiff also claims monthly household expenses of approximately $1,940.00, which is
22 slightly below her monthly income. (Doc. 4 p. 4-5). Specifically, Plaintiff claims $638 in
23 rent/home-mortgage payments, $478 for utilities, and $375 for food. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff also claims
24 that she spends $100 in clothing and $88 for recreation. In addition, Plaintiff pays $109 per month
25 on car insurance as well as $152 per month on funeral expenses. (Id.)
26 The completed long form application reflects that although Plaintiff is above the poverty
27
1See HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2023 https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last
1 | line, her net monthly income is barely positive after expenses. Although some expenses appear
2 | high, they do not appear exorbitant or implausible. While Plaintiff does not appear to be totally
3 | destitute, Plaintiff's long form application suggests that her financial situation is fragile enough that
4 | payment of the $402.00 filing fee would have an adverse impact on her necessities of daily life.
5 | V. Conclusion and Order
6 Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the administrative decision
7 | denying Social Security benefits and her IFP application also demonstrates that she cannot pay the
8 | filing fee without negatively affecting her necessities of daily life.
9 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
10 | forma pauperis (Docs. 2, 4) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the following:
11 | 1) aSummons; 2) the Scheduling Order; 3) the Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment; and
12 | 4) a Consent to Assignment or Request for Reassignment form.
13 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
"| Dated: _ August 29, 2023 | Wr bo
15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28