(SS) Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2021cv00784 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/12/2021. FOURTEEN DAY deadline for filing fee. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.E.S., by guardian ad litem, KATRINA M. MARTINEZ, No. 1:21-cv-000784-NONE-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. Nos. 2, 5, 6) 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff J.E.S., by his guardian ad litem Katrina M. Martinez, filed a complaint in this 20 action on May 14, 2021, challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 21 denying disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 22 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. No. 2.) On May 17, 2021, an order 25 issued finding that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis did not demonstrate 26 entitlement to proceed in this action without prepayment of fees. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff was 27 ordered to either file a long form application to proceed without prepayment of fees or pay the 28 filing fee within twenty days. (Id.) Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, did not file a long 1 1 form application to proceed without prepayment of fees, pay the filing fee, or otherwise respond 2 to the May 17, 2021 order. 3 Accordingly, on June 22, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 4 recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 6.) 5 The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 6 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) The 7 period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 9 de novo review of this case. “To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, applicants must 10 demonstrate that because of poverty, they cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves, 11 and any dependents, with the necessities of life.” Soldani v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 1:1912 cv-00040-JLT, 2019 WL 2160380, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019). Many courts look to the 13 federal poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services as 14 a guidepost in evaluating in forma pauperis applications. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 15 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004); Boulas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv16 01163-LJO-BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty 17 guidelines to in forma pauperis application). However, the poverty guidelines should not be 18 considered in a vacuum; rather, courts are to consider income in the context of overall expenses 19 and other factors, including savings and debts. See, e.g., Boulas, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 n.1 20 (denying in forma pauperis where income exceeded expenses); Lintz v. Donahoe, No. 2:14-CV21 0224-JAM-DAD, 2014 WL 1338782, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014) (recommending denial of in 22 forma pauperis status where plaintiff had $3,000 in savings even though expenses exceeded 23 income). Where the applicant’s income exceeds expenses by a notable amount, it may be 24 appropriate to deny in forma pauperis status. Lopez-Ruiz v. Tripler Army Med. Ctr.’s 25 Postdoctoral Fellowship in Clinical Psychology, No. CV. 11-0066 JMS/BMK, 2011 WL 26 486952, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 4, 2011) (denying in forma pauperis status where the applicant’s 27 income was $21,600, with possibly one dependent, which was above the relevant federal poverty 28 guideline of $16,760, and the applicant’s income exceeded their monthly expenses). 2 1 Here, the findings and recommendations accurately reflect the record by indicating that 2 Ms. Martinez has reported income of $3,200 per month (or $38,400 per year). (Doc. No. 6 at 2; 3 see also Doc. No. 2 at 2.) As the findings and recommendations indicate, the 2021 Poverty 4 Guidelines for the 48 contiguous states for a household of four is $26,500.00. 2021 Poverty 5 Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited July 7, 2021). Without the 6 information that could have been provided in a long form application, the court is unable to 7 determine the extent to which the reported income is offset by expenses or debts. As a result, 8 based on the information before it, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations 9 are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 22, 2021, (Doc. No. 6), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 12 13 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; 14 3. The four hundred and two dollar ($402.00) filing fee for this action SHALL BE PAID within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order; and 15 16 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 12, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
