Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNELL W., Case No.: 21cv2034-MDD Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, [ECF No. 3]

Defendant.

On December 3, 2021, Arnell W. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 19 405(g), challenging the denial of Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth herein, 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 $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. An action may proceed In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional despite plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only if plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 3 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948).

Here, Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently shows he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff declares he has no employment for at least the past two years and has no money in bank }accounts or in any other financial institution. (ECF No. 3 at 2). Plaintiff ;}attests that he does not own anything valuable, and his only monthly income is $210 in food stamps. (d. at 2-3). Plaintiff estimates that he spends $210 }each month on food and explains that his family provides for his shelter and other daily needs. Cd. at 4-5).

Plaintiffs affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339-40. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and }concludes it is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 20 |} 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2021 Mitel bs. [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin United States Magistrate Judge } ———___

97 Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52.00 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.