Gaytan v. Saul

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HUGO GAYTAN, Case No.: 20cv153-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. AMENDED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner [ECF NO. 7] of Social Security, Defendant.

On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff Hugo Gaytan 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. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP because his application did not fully explain how he covered his living expenses. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff has filed an amended motion to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 7). For the reasons set for below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.

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 Rodriquez 5 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely || destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & || Co., 8335 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).

12 A review! of the amended application by the Court shows that Plaintiff ||receives $197.00 in food stamps and relies primarily upon his parents and 14 jobs for living expenses. Plaintiff's amended affidavit sufficiently shows || he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this |}action. As such, Plaintiff's amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis is || GRANTED.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

90 ||Dated: July 24, 2020 .

Mitel fou Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 22 United States Magistrate Judge || ||1 The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs complaint, and concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).