From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lacy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Nov 19, 2021
No. CV-21-01908-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2021)

Opinion

CV-21-01908-PHX-JAT

11-19-2021

Mona Lisa Lacy, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff and her spouse, who reside in Arizona (Doc. 1 at 1), which is a community property state, receive $6,730.00 per month in income. Additionally, they have $84,763.99 in cash in their checking account.

An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets. As this court has recognized, “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.1960).
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015).

In Escobedo, the Court of Appeals suggested that only the funds left over after expenses should be considered in determining whether to grant in forma pauperis status. 787 F.3d at 1235 (“Once her rent and debt payments were taken into account, she would have had to dedicate the entirety of two-months' worth of her remaining funds, meaning that she would have to forego eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee.”).

Unlike Escobedo, here Plaintiff has almost $85,000 in her checking account, so she would not need to save up to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 2). Further, her monthly expenses are $1,500 less than her monthly income (id.), so she could also pay the filing fee out of that surplus. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff does not qualify for in forma pauperis status. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 10 days of this Order, or the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case (without prejudice) and enter judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Lacy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Nov 19, 2021
No. CV-21-01908-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Lacy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Case Details

Full title:Mona Lisa Lacy, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security…

Court:United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Nov 19, 2021

Citations

No. CV-21-01908-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2021)