Muang M. v. Kijakazi
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-09200
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Muang M. v. Saul, Judge Corley ordered an explanation or filing-fee payment before deciding the application to proceed without paying.
Muang M.’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee remained undecided. She was required either to explain by January 7, 2021, why the request should not be denied or to pay the filing fee.
What happened
Muang M. asked to proceed without paying the court’s filing fee. The application stated that she received $1,700 monthly rental income and that her husband’s gross monthly income exceeded $9,000.
The application also stated that Muang M. and her husband owned their home, had more than $7,000 in a bank account, and had monthly income exceeding listed expenses by more than $2,500.
Judge Corley did not decide the application. She ordered Muang M. to explain in writing by January 7, 2021, why the application should not be denied, or to pay the filing fee instead.
The detailed version
- Muang M. v. Kijakazi · No. 3:20-cv-09200
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
Muang M. filed an application to proceed without paying the court’s filing fee. The application was pending before the court.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that an affidavit supporting such an application is sufficient when it alleges that the person cannot pay court costs while still affording life’s necessities. The court cited the requirement that a person seeking this status must describe poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty.
The application reported $1,700 in monthly rental income, and stated that Muang M.’s husband had gross monthly income of more than $9,000, including $5,617.68 in net income. It also reported that Muang M. and her husband owned their home, had more than $7,000 in a bank account, and had monthly income exceeding their listed monthly expenses by more than $2,500.
Order
The court ordered Muang M. to show cause—that is, to explain—why the application should not be denied. The written response was due January 7, 2021. Alternatively, she could pay the filing fee. The court did not grant or deny the application in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.