Kimberly Leshune Jordan v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01880
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Kimberly Leshune Jordan, Case No. 2:25-cv-01880-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 7 PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1)

Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 8 Security,

9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff Kimberly Leshune Jordan filed a Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 12 (“IFP”) and Complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. This is a social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by 13 counsel. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice for the reasons below. 14 Plaintiff must either file a new Long Form IFP application OR pay the full filing $405 fee by December 15 19, 2025. 16 I. GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 18 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 19 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 20 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 21 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 22 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 23 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 24 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 25 1 1 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 2 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 3 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 4 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 5 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 6 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 7 verify his poverty adequately”). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in themselves for 8 denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443-44 (7th Cir. 9 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma pauperis 10 application). 11 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 12 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 13 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 14 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, more 15 information is needed, or it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for 16 determining whether the applicant qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to 17 submit the Long Form, the correct form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the 18 information requested in the Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the 19 applicant's financial status. See e.g., Greco v. NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 2:15-cv-001370- 20 MMD-PAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub 21 nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 2:15-cv-001370-MMD-PAL, 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 2 1 OL. ANALYSIS 2 The Court finds that it cannot determine plaintiffs IFP status at this time. Plaintiff filed a Long 3 || Form IFP application (ECF No. 1); however, the Court notes that it contains deficiencies. She seems to 4 || claim that she is unemployed and receives food stamps as public assistance. ECF No. / at 1-2. Plaintiff 5 || also claims that she receives Section 8 benefits to help pay for her monthly living expenses and that she 6 || lives with her friend who further helps pay “with the bills and expenses”. /d. at 4-5. However, plaintiff 7 || did not disclose or explain how much in Section 8 benefits she receives for rent. See id. Furthermore, 8 || plaintiff does not state how much she pays for the monthly expenses she discloses in the IFP application 9 ||and how much her friend pays. See id. Therefore, the Court finds it cannot make a determination of 10 || plaintiffs IFP status at this time. However, the Court will give plaintiff another opportunity to file his 11 || IFP application. If plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff must complete a new Long 12 || Form IFP application that is complete and responds to the Court’s request for additional information and 13 || details made by this Order. 14 ACCORDINGLY, 15 IT IS ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without 17 prejudice. 18 2. Plaintiff must either: (1) file a Long Form IFP application, curing the deficiencies noted in 19 this Order, or (2) pay the full $405 filing fee by December 19, 2025. 20 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 21 dismissed. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: November 19, 2025. peo. a 24 fiom oY Cefvillier I 35 Unked States py Judge

1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 10 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4