Hirtenstein v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIA HIRTENSTEIN, Case No.: 21-cv-470-JM-(DEB) Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of (Doc. No. 2.)

Social Security,

Defendant.

On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner represented by counsel, filed a complaint based on the denial of her application for social security disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 2.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “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). The granting or denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).

In her application Plaintiff reports a monthly income of $8,000 in interest from real property and dividends. (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) Further, she states that one personal IRA }account with Fidelity contains $2,404,809 and that there is $240,000 in her checking }account. (/d. at 2.) Additionally, a home valued at $1,100,000, other real estate valued at $1,900,000, and a motor vehicle valued at $8,300, are listed as assets totaling $3,008,300. Ud. at 3.) Plaintiff's application lists monthly expenses at $11,400 with Plaintiff declaring her “need to preserve my cash to cover uninsured medical bills.” (/d. at 5.) Based on the /information provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (“[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of the above, the court applies its discretion and DENIES Plaintiff's motion proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff shall have until April 30, 2021 to pay the entire filing fee. Ifthe filing fee is not paid by April 30, 2021, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice and close the case without further order from the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2021 Piel if pray n. Jeffrey. Miller nited States District Judge