Jackson v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01830
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 LAURA JACKSON, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C25-1830-KKE 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Plaintiffs Laura Jackson and Shawn Gasca have each filed an application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled case. (Dkt. ## 1-2.) In her application, Plaintiff 16 Laura Jackson indicates she last worked in August 2025, currently receives no income from any 17 source, has no funds in cash or accounts, and has no valuable property or dependents. (Dkt. # 1 at 18 1-2; see also dkt. # 1-3 at 6-7.) Ms. Jackson does not identify the types of monthly expenses she 19 incurs nor the amount spent. (Dkt. # 1 at 2.) In a space on the form to explain why she could not 20 pay court fees, Ms. Jackson did not provide any relevant information but included statements that 21 appear to relate to her claims in this action. (Id.) 22 Plaintiff Shawn Gasca’s application indicates income of $1,267.00 per month from Social 23 Security, monthly expenses totaling $475.00 for rent, utilities, and insurance, no funds in cash or 1 accounts, and no valuable property or dependents. (Dkt. # 2 at 1-2.) The only other information 2 provided is that “Social Security doesn’t pay money [and] keeps deducting.” (Id. at 2.) 3 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 4 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status,

5 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 6 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 7 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 8 must show that he or she “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and 9 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 10 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations omitted). 11 The filing fee need only be paid once, regardless of the number of plaintiffs. Thus, “if 12 multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must qualify for IFP status.” 13 Warren v. Wasden, 2023 WL 3886491, at *1 (D. Idaho June 8, 2023) (quoting Spencer v. Soc. 14 Sec. Admin., 2020 WL 5502159, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2020)).

15 Here, the Court cannot determine whether Ms. Jackson qualifies for IFP status. Ms. 16 Jackson fails to explain how she can meet her basic living needs, such as food and housing, 17 given her lack of income or savings. Because Ms. Jackson’s circumstances are unclear, the Court 18 cannot determine whether the two Plaintiffs could, together, afford to pay court fees. Without 19 further information, Plaintiffs should not be permitted to proceed IFP. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff Laura Jackson is ORDERED to show cause by October 31, 2025, 21 why this Court should not recommend that her IFP application be denied.1 In the alternative, Ms. 22 1 To the extent Plaintiffs fear public disclosure of their private information, the Court directs Plaintiffs to 23 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g), which outlines the circumstances and procedures for filing documents under seal (available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-orders (last accessed Sept. 30, 2025)). 1 Jackson may file an amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above by that date. 2 The Clerk is directed to re-note Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for October 31, 2025, and 3 send copies of this Order to Plaintiffs, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable 4 Kymberly K. Evanson.

5 Dated this 30th day of September, 2025. 6 A 7 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23