Romero v. Kijakazi

Docket 3:21-cv-01296

Filed
2021-07-20
Terminated
2022-11-30
Case type
cv

Outcome

remanded to U.S. agency

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=74 OFFICE=3 DOCKET=2101296 FILEDATE=07/20/2021 DISP=11, PROCPROG=10, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUANITA R., Case No.: 21cv1296-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 4] Defendant. 16 17 On July 20, 2021, Juanita R. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 18 pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 19 challenging the denial of Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability 20 benefits. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff filed an amended motion to 22 proceed IFP on July 20, 2021. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth herein, 23 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s amended motion to proceed IFP. 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district 25 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, 26 1 must pay a filing fee of $400.1 See U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed 2 despite plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if plaintiff is granted 3 leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 4 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed [IFP] is a privilege not a 5 right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not 6 be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 7 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). 8 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit sufficiently shows she is unable to pay the fees 9 or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff has had no 10 employment for at least the past two years and has no money in bank 11 accounts or in any other financial institution. (ECF No. 4 at 2). Her sole 12 asset is a car valued at $16,000. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff’s only monthly income is 13 from public assistance and child support payments. (Id. at 1-2). Specifically, 14 Plaintiff reports that she receives monthly assistance fron CalWORKS public 15 assistance ($630.00), CalFresh food stamps ($400.00), and child support 16 payments ($50.00). (Id.). Plaintiff explains that she currently relies on 17 rental assistance to cover 75% of her rent. (Id. at 5). Since Plaintiff reports 18 her rent is $1,280.00, the Court estimates Plaintiff receives $960.00 per 19 month in rental assistance. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff’s monthly income from these 20 sources totals $2,040.00. 21 Plaintiff declares that her monthly expenses for rent, food, clothing, 22 laundry, transportation, and cell phones amount to $2,070.00. (Id. at 4-5). 23 Plaintiff has a 16-year-old daughter who relies on her for support. (Id. at 3). 24 Plaintiff’s affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay the required 25 1 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 26 administrative fee of $52.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52.00 1 || filing fee without sacrificing the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 9 3389-340. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP. 3 || Additionally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and concludes it is 4 ||not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2021 Mitel », | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.