Dobbs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Michael Dobbs, No. CV-22-00384-TUC-RCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

15 On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP Application"). (Docs. 1–2.) The matter was assigned to the Honorable D. Thomas Ferraro. (Doc. 4.) The party then elected assignment to the District Court (Doc. 7) and the matter was reassigned to this Court (Doc. 8).

19 On August 26, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court deny the IFP Application because Plaintiff's application "does not reflect expenses beyond his and his spouses' joint monthly income." (Doc. 9 at 2.) Plaintiff then filed a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R clarifying that his monthly expenses moving forward do exceed the sum total of his income and his spouse's newly-reduced income. (Doc. 10 at 1–2.)

25 When a party objects, the District Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 1|| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 Here, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and IFP Application as well as 3|| the Magistrate Judge's R&R and Plaintiff's Objection. (Docs. 1-2, 9-10.) In light of Plaintiff's clarification in his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, the Court finds || that Plaintiff has shown he is unable to pay the fees without hardship as required by 28 6|| U.S.C. § 1915(a). As the Magistrate Judge noted, "an applicant need not ‘be absolutely 7\|| destitute to enjoy the benefit of the statute . . . [or to face spending] the last dollar they || have or can get, and thus make themselves and their dependents wholly destitute’ to proceed with their claim.” (Doc. 9 at 2 (quoting Adkins v. ELI. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)).) With his spouse's newly-reduced income, Plaintiff's monthly |) expenses of $4,649.46 exceed their total gross income $4,632.00. (Doc. 10 at 2.) Neither their combined monthly income, nor Plaintiff's savings of $240.00, are sufficient to cover || the $402 filing fee. (/d.)

14 Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and 15} Recommendation denying Plaintiff's IFP Application. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP Application is GRANTED. (Doc. 2.)

17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case, reassigned to the Honorable Raner C.

18 || Collins, is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro for all pretrial || proceedings and a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), || Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

22 All future filings in this case shall be designated: 23 CV-22-00384-TUC-RCC (DTF).

24 Dated this 30th day of August, 2022.

25 A, 26 ok. Eb — TI 27 Honorable Raner ©. Collins 28 merior United States District Judge _2-