Washington v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Cashanna W., as guardian ad litem for Case No. 2:25-cv-01791-DJA K.W., her minor son,

Plaintiff, Order

v.

Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Represented Plaintiff Cashanna W., as guardian ad litem for K.W., her minor son, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is incomplete. So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and with leave to refile. I. Discussion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Here, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. In response to question 5, Plaintiff does not describe the approximate value of the car she lists. In response to question 6, Plaintiff explains that she pays $672.00 per month in rent and utilities, but does not explain whether she has any other regular monthly expenses that might deplete the $2,000.00 per month that she receives in Social Security Disability Income and dependents’ benefits. Without more information, it appears that Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds her monthly expenses by $1,328.00. Finally, in response to question 7, Plaintiff indicates that she has two dependents, but does not describe her relationship with each person and how much she contributes to their support. Because Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff another opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable questions. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice and with leave to refile. /// /// IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 27, 2025, to file an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. DATED: September 25, 2025 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE