Hirtenstein

Hirtenstein v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 16, 20213:21-cv-00470California522 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCIA HIRTENSTEIN, Case No.: 21-cv-470-JM-(DEB) Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of (Doc. No. 2.) Social Security, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner represented by counsel, filed a complaint based on the denial of her application for social security disability benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 2.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to pay…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.