Rodriguez v. Kijakazi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA R., Case No.: 20cv1771-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of PAUPERIS Social Security, Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I.

22 DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). Here, Plaintiff’s application is not on the form preferred by this Court, which requires more information about income, assets, and expenses than provided by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

28 / / / 1 Plaintiff may file a new application for leave to proceed IFP using the form AO 239 (Rev. 01/15), Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ||(Long Form). The form can be found on _ the Court’s website at || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/forms.aspx ?list=all.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: September 24, 2020 NO 7 Qe F | g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States Magistrate Judge