ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 3]

BERNARD G. SKOMAL, Magistrate Judge.

On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff Henry Furiani filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to commence this action. Before this Court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 3.)

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring a party instituting a civil action to pay a filing fee of $350 as well as a $50 administrative fee). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which states:

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The determination of indigency falls within the district court's discretion. California Men's Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) ("Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency.").

It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948); Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide for himself and dependents with the necessities of life." Id. at 339. At the same time, "the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar." Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

District courts tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F.Supp. 316 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds by Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelley, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed IFP, later required to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (IFP application denied because the plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and that was more than sufficient to pay the filing fee). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant's poverty must be stated "with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty." United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, Plaintiff has filed an affidavit stating that his total monthly income is $0 and he has not been employed since 2009. (ECF No. 2 at 1-2.) While his spouse's monthly gross income is $2,516, they have monthly expenses of $2,171.80. (Id. at 3-5.) They have a total of $350.85 in the bank. (Id. at 2-3.) Based on the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fee. See, e.g., Jefferson, 277 F.2d at 725 ("One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain [the] benefits of the in forma pauperis statute."); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting "there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status," but, "[w]hatever the standard, $350 is a lot of money to many millions of Americans"). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3).

In light of the Court's ruling on the IFP motion, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed on October 31, 2017 and an accompanying summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

2. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendant's counsel, a copy of every further pleading or document submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on Defendant or Defendant's counsel and the date of service. Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.