Sargantt v. Bisignano

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBA TONI SARGANTT, Case No. 25-cv-02737-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of (ECF No. 8) Social Security, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ruba Toni Sargantt filed a complaint against Defendants (ECF No. 1) and 18 a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) concurrently. The Court 19 initially dismissed Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for 20 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8), which the Court evaluates in this Order. 21 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay the 23 required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to proceed 24 without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls within the district 25 court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d 26 on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the 27 reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has 28 satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be 1 ||completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. EI. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 2 339-40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of 3 || poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give 4 ||security for costs ... and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities 5 llof life.” Jd. at 339. At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be 6 ||employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense 7 ||... the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to 8 his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, 9 ||the facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, 10 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 11 Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has provided sufficient information to show 12 || Plaintiffis unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff 13 |/is currently unemployed and receives food stamps in the amount of $296 and disability in 14 || the amount of $1,209 each month. (See ECF No. 8.) Though Plaintiffhas significant assets 15 ||in her motor vehicles, Plaintiff's total monthly expenses culminate to $2,540—exceeding 16 ||his household’s monthly income by $1,035. (d.) Additionally, Plaintiff receives no 17 |}income from real property, investments, retirement accounts, gifts, or alimony. (/d.) 18 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application for leave to 19 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8). However, if it appears at any time in the future 20 || that Plaintiffs financial picture has improved for any reason, the Court will direct Plaintiff 21 ||to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. This includes any recovery Plaintiff may 22 ||realize from this suit or others, and any assistance Plaintiff may receive from family or the 23 || government. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ~ 26 || DATED: December 15, 2025 pallu Bahar □□ 47 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 28 ~_9_