1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KRISTINE E.,1 Case No.: 24-CV-1182-GPC-MMP

11 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

12 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

13 MARTIN O’MALLEY,

PAUPERIS

14 Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 15

16 On July 9, 2024, Kristine E. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Social Security appeal pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act, seeking judicial review of the 18 decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”) 19 denying Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the 20 Social Security Act. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. Plaintiff also filed the instant Motion for Leave to 21 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a United States 23 District Court, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a $405 filing 24

25 26 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), the Court refers to all non- 27 government parties by using their first name and last initial. 1 fee.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(a). Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To satisfy the 4 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, applicants must demonstrate that because of poverty, 5 they cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves, and any dependents, with the 6 necessities of life.” Soldani v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-CV-00040-JLT, 2019 WL 7 2160380, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019). However, a party need not be “absolutely 8 destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 9 339-40 (1948). Plaintiff must submit an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay the 10 filing fee, and the affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s assets. 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Civil Local Rule 3.2(d) permits the Court, in its discretion, to 12 “impose a partial filing fee which is less than the full filing fee that is required by law, 13 but which is commensurate with the applicant’s ability to pay.” 14 Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that her and her husband’s income, based on her 15 husband’s disability payments following his injury, is $365 less than their monthly 16 expenses. ECF No. 2 at 1-2, 4-5. Plaintiff and her husband collectively have less than 17 $500 in cash. ECF No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff and her husband do not appear to be spending 18 frivolously. See id. at 3-4. Their only assets are two cars, which are valued at $6,200 19 and $16,000, though they are not paid off. Id. at 3. Nonetheless, their household 20 income is more than double the federal poverty line. See id. at 3-4; Poverty 21 Guidelines, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION, 22 https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines. 23

24 2 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 25 administrative fee of $55.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b) (Judicial Conference Schedule 26 of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional 27 $55.00 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. | The Court finds that Plaintiff is able to pay a portion of the filing fee without 2 impairing her ability to afford the necessities of life. However, the full $405 filing fee 3 would represent a significant portion of the household’s monthly expenses such that 4 || Plaintiff might not be able to afford the necessities of life if any unexpected bills were > arise. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[a]n affidavit 6 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay 7 the court costs and still afford the necessities of life’) (citing Adkins v. EI. DuPont de 8 || Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)); Camran v. San Diego Youth Servs., No. 23- 9 CV-491-GPC-WVG, 2023 WL 3324706, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2023) (same). The 10 || Court determines that a filing fee of $250 is appropriate and commensurate with 11 |) plaintiff's ability to pay. 12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs 13 || Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay 14 partial filing fee of $250 within 30 days of this Order if she intends to proceed in this 15 || matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || Dated: September 9, 2024 19 Hon. athe Coke 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ; 28 24-CV-1182-GPC-MMP