1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOD M. Case No.: 21cv1997-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting [ECF No. 2] Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. ECF No. 2. In this action, Plaintiff is seeking review and reversal of the final 20 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that denied Plaintiff’s 21 claim for disability benefits. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion 22 is DENIED. 23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 25 $400. See

(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 26 the entire fee only if he or she is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 27 pursuant to

(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook,

, 1177 28 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the 1 prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 2 showing that he or she is unable to pay the required filing fee.

(a). 3 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. California 4 Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council v. Rowland,

, 858 5 (9th Cir. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's 6 Advisory Council,

(1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 7 court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 8 statute's requirement of indigency.”). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely 9 destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

, 339 10 (1948). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the 11 affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 12 Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins,

). However, 13 “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 14 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances 15 of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” 16 Temple v. Ellerthorpe,

(D.R.I. 1984). Finally, the facts as to the 17 litigant’s indigency must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” 18 United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). 19 Here, Plaintiff’s application shows that his monthly expenses are approximately 20 $200 for food. ECF No. 2 at 4. Plaintiff also indicates that he receives $200 in public 21 assistance for food in the form of food stamps. Id. at 2. Although Plaintiff indicates that 22 he does not have any money in a savings and/or checking account, he does have assets 23 including a home valued at $250,000, a vehicle valued at $1,500, and a second vehicle 24 valued at $1,200. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s assets reflect that he can pay the court costs and still 25 afford the necessities of life. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 26 in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date this Order is docketed to pay 27 the filing fee. 28 l The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, and concludes it is not subject to 2 || sua sponte dismissal under

(e)(2)(B). ! 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 20, 2021 = WO > WF) 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 4 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to

(a) and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 25 be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief.”

(e)(2); see_also Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 27 || prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim’).