(SS) Lora v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C.C.R, No. 1:21-cv-0640-NONE-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

v. LUZ LORA’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

(Doc. Nos. 5, 7, 9)

Defendant.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Minor plaintiff C.C.R., by his guardian ad litem, Luz Lora, filed a complaint in this action seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Along with the complaint, Ms. Lora filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 5, 7.) The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 11, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that Ms. Lora’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on Ms. Lora and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. “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., 2019 WL

5 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). However, the poverty guidelines should not be considered in a vacuum; rather, courts are to consider income in the context of overall expenses and other factors, including savings and debts. See, e.g., Boulas, 2018 WL 6615075 at *1 n.1 (denying in forma pauperis where income exceeded expenses); Lintz v. Donahoe, No. 2:14-CV-0224-JAM- DAD, 2014 WL 1338782, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014) (recommending denial of in forma pauperis status where plaintiff had $3,000 in savings even though expenses exceeded income). Where the applicant’s income exceeds expenses by a notable amount, it may be appropriate to deny in forma pauperis status. Lopez-Ruiz v. Tripler Army Med. Ctr.’s Postdoctoral Fellowship in Clinical Psychology, No. CV. 11-0066 JMS/BMK, 2011 WL 486952, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 4, 2011) (denying in forma pauperis status where applicant’s income was $21,600, with possibly one dependent, which was above relevant federal poverty guideline of $16,760, and the applicant’s income exceeded their monthly expenses).

Here, the findings and recommendations accurately reflect the record by indicating that Ms. Lora has reported income of $2,800.001 per month (or $33,600.00 per year). (Id. at 2; see also Doc. No. 7 at 2.) As the findings and recommendations indicate, the 2021 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 contiguous states for a household of two is $17,420.00. 2021 Poverty Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited June 17, 2021). Ms. Lora’s The court notes that $400.00 of this $2,800.00 is apparently derived from “COVID food application also lists expenses totaling $1,680.00 per month, apparently leaving her approximately $1,200.00 of income beyond her expenses each month. On this record, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations, filed May 11, 2021, (Doc. No. 9), is

ADOPTED IN FULL; and 2. Ms. Lora’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 7), is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE?.

3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order, plaintiff SHALL either:

(a) pay the filing fee of four hundred two dollars ($402.00) in this action; or (b) file an updated long form in forma pauperis application.

4. Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and/or failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

\ ii A, A So

Dated: _ June 18, 2021 joke 1" rod

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26/5... □□ a a: i

This denial of the application to proceed in forma pauperis is without prejudice to plaintiff re- submitting a revised long form application to proceed in forma pauperis if plaintiff believes additional detail or changed circumstances supporting the application can be presented to the court.