Margaret D. F. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Margaret D. F., Case No. 2:26-cv-01540-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 9 Security,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Margaret D. F. has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s 14 application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without 15 prejudice. 16 I. Discussion. 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 18 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 19 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 20 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 21 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 22 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 23 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 24 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 25 (1948). 26 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 27 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 1 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 2 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 3 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 4 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 5 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 6 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 8 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 9 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 10 in forma pauperis application). 11 In response to question 2, Plaintiff claims to make $800 in gross pay or wages per month 12 and takes home $50 per month of that amount. However, Plaintiff does not respond to the first 13 part of the question, which asks for Plaintiff’s employer’s name and address. In response to 14 question 5, which asks Plaintiff to list any real estate or other items of value, Plaintiff writes 15 “NA.” But on the docket, Plaintiff includes an address, which address public records reveal is a 16 house. However, Plaintiff does not list the house as an asset in response to question 5. 17 To the extent that Plaintiff is renting, she does not make this clear, and her response to 18 question 6 also fails to provide an explanation. In response to question 6, Plaintiff claims to pay 19 “$0-$1,000” in regular monthly expenses, but she does not describe and provide the amount of 20 the monthly expenses as required by the question. Plaintiff does not indicate if that amount 21 includes rent or utilities or otherwise explains how she lives given her claim to, in some months, 22 pay $0 in bills. 23 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 24 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 25 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 26 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 27 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 1 of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the 2 future. 3 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 4 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 5 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 6 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 8 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until June 22, 2026, to file an updated 10 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 11 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 12 be dismissed. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 14 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 15 instructions.1 16 17 DATED: May 22, 2026, 18 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-