Amanda Bennett v. Central Intelligence Agency, Elon Musk

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 4, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-05500
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 AMANDA BENNETT, Case No. 3:26-cv-05500-TMC 7 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION RE: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 9 ELON MUSK, FORMA PAUPERIS 10 Defendant. 11 Plaintiff appears to have funds available to afford the $405 filing fee. Dkt. 1, 12 Application for IFP. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), plaintiff’s IFP application (Dkt. 1) 13 should be denied, as to the financial criteria. See also United States District Court for 14 the Western District of Washington, Local Civil Rule 3(b)(c) (explaining the IFP 15 process). 16

24 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1): 2 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, 3 or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such 4 prisoner 1 possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense 5 or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.

6 To be eligible for IFP status, the party does not need to establish that he or she is 7 destitute. It is important to implement the statute in a practical manner so that a party is 8 not faced with the choice of either abandoning a potentially meritorious claim or going 9 without the necessities of life. Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2nd 10 Cir.1983) (court grants IFP motion concerning $120.00 for filing fees where plaintiff’s 11 monthly government benefits provided an income significantly below poverty level, he 12 had little money in the bank, and significant debt); Cf. Simelton v. Xerox Corp., 172 F.3d 13 876 (Table) (9th Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion; Court of Appeals upheld the trial 14 court’s discretion to deny IFP status where the party’s annual income was above the 15 poverty threshold, and his debts were modest). “If a litigant has the wherewithal to pay 16 court fees and costs without thereby being deprived of the necessities of life,” then the 17 court may require them to pay the filing fee. Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 18 1989); Himebauch v. Kaweah Delta Medical Center, 2012 WL 1969057 (No. 12-CV- 19 0587 LJO BAM)(E.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted). 20

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) applies to both prisoners and to non-prisoners who make a motion to proceed 21 IFP. A prisoner whose case is within the scope of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) would be required to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (2); they must provide trust account information and make 22 regular payments. Unsuccessful non-prisoner litigants would not be required to pre-pay the filing fee but would be liable for fees and costs when they are financially able. Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1229 n.6, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2013). The use of the term “prisoner possesses” has been interpreted as a 23 typographical error. Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 139-140, and n. 2 (5th Cir. 1997); Floyd v. U.S. Postal Service, Service, 105 F.3d 274, 275-77 (6th Cir.1997), modified on other grounds in Callihan v. 24 Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 801 (6th Cir.1999). 1 Even if the district court does not clearly state the bases upon which IFP 2 status was denied, the appellate court will review the decision for an abuse of 3 discretion and will affirm on any ground that finds support in the record. O’Loughlin 4 v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1990). The appellate court will not reverse “unless it 5 has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of

6 judgment or acted in an arbitrary fashion unjustified by the situation and 7 circumstances of the case.” Id. A plaintiff is not entitled to submit an objection to 8 the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that IFP status should be 9 denied. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). 10 Aside from the financial criteria, based on the allegations in the proposed 11 complaint, it does not appear plaintiff has met the substantive criteria for IFP required 12 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). Therefore, even if the District Court decides to grant 13 IFP under the financial criteria, the Court recommends the complaint be reviewed under 14 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).

15 Plaintiff is advised the assigned United States District Judge may further review 16 the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). Pending review by the assigned District 17 Judge, a summons may not be issued. If the summons is not issued, then further filings 18 submitted by Plaintiff will not be considered until after the assigned District Judge 19 completes their review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).mThe Court advises plaintiff 20 that leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not necessarily entitle Plaintiff to a waiver 21 of any other cost(s) of litigation. 22 The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to 23 the Honorable Tiffany M. Cartwright 24 1 2 3 Dated this 4th day of June, 2026. 4 5 6 A 7 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24