(SS) Carranza v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2023cv00816 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/05/23 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a District Judge. District Judge Dale A. Drozd added to case. It is further RECOMMENDED that the 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. No objections period is required for IFP denials. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-0816 KJN DAD (SS). (Licea Chavez, V)

Download PDF

(SS) Carranza v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA VERONICA CARRANZA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 2:23-cv-816-KJN ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S IFP REQUEST (ECF No. 2.) Defendant. 16 Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 17 18 pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without 19 prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees). 1 (ECF No. 2.) The affidavit in support of the motion indicates plaintiff and her husband have a monthly 20 21 income of approximately $6,000, i.e., $72,000 annually, and have monthly expenses of $1,700. 22 (See ECF No. 2.) According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the 23 current poverty guideline for a household of 2 (not residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $19,720.00. 24 See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. As plaintiff’s gross household income is over 300% 25 of the 2023 poverty guideline, the court cannot find plaintiff unable to pay. To be sure, the court 26 is aware plaintiff is applying for disability benefits, and also is sympathetic to the fact that 27 28 1 Actions involving review of Social Security decisions are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 plaintiff has several expenses with which to contend. However, numerous litigants in this court 2 have significant monthly expenditures, and may have to make difficult choices as to how to 3 apportion their income between such expenses and litigating an action in federal court. Such 4 difficulties in themselves do not amount to indigency. Thus, the court recommends plaintiff’s 5 IFP motion be denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all 6 parties, magistrate judge lacks authority to issue dispositive order denying in forma pauperis 7 status). 8 9 Presently, a filing fee of $402.00 is required to commence a civil action in this court. However, based on the information in the affidavit, it is clear that a one-time $402 payment may 10 represent a significant strain on plaintiff’s budget. Therefore, the court finds it appropriate to 11 allow for monthly payments of $100 until the $400 filing fee is satisfied. The court will issue 12 service orders upon receipt of the first installment of $102.00 (with $100 installments thereafter). 13 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, the undersigned ORDERS the Clerk of Court to RANDOMLY ASSIGN a 14 15 district judge to this action. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s IFP request (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; 17 2. Plaintiff be granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $100 installments, beginning June 18 1, 2023 and due on the 1st of each month thereafter, and allow for the Clerk to issue a 19 summons after the first installment is received; and 3. Plaintiff be warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment 20 schedule may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 21 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 23 the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). No objections period is required for 24 IFP denials. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 25 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to the magistrate judge's 26 recommendation that [his] application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.”). 27 Dated: May 5, 2023 28 carr.816 2

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.