Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DUNN v. COLVIN, C13-5691-RSL-BAT. (2013)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20130823d50 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Richard Dunn has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this Social Security disability appeal. Dkt. 1. In his application, plaintiff states that his spouse earns $3,500 net pay per month, and that he and his spouse receive $930 per month in pensions, annuities, or life insurance payments, and $1,460 per month in Social Security Retirement or public assistance for a total of $5,890 per month in incom
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Richard Dunn has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this Social Security disability appeal. Dkt. 1. In his application, plaintiff states that his spouse earns $3,500 net pay per month, and that he and his spouse receive $930 per month in pensions, annuities, or life insurance payments, and $1,460 per month in Social Security Retirement or public assistance for a total of $5,890 per month in income. He also did not indicate his last date of employment, and the total amount of his last monthly salary. Plaintiff states that he has no persons dependent upon him or his spouse for support. He does list back taxes, medical insurance, and Chapter 13 bankruptcy as additional burdens on his income.

Even with the expenses and his bankruptcy, his level of income makes him ineligible for IFP status, which is reserved for the truly indigent. The Court therefore recommends that plaintiff's IFP application be denied and he be directed to pay the filing fee within 30 days of the date this recommendation is adopted or the Clerk will close the file.

A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed no later than August 29, 2013. This matter will be ready for the Court's consideration on August 30, 2013. Objections shall not exceed twelve pages. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer