Washington v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01791
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Cashanna W., as guardian ad litem for Case No. 2:25-cv-01791-DJA 6 K.W., her minor son,

7 Plaintiff, Order

8 v.

9 Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Represented Plaintiff Cashanna W., as guardian ad litem for K.W., her minor son, filed an 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). 14 (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is incomplete. So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 15 application without prejudice and with leave to refile. 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). 8 Here, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. In response to question 5, 9 Plaintiff does not describe the approximate value of the car she lists. In response to question 6, 10 Plaintiff explains that she pays $672.00 per month in rent and utilities, but does not explain 11 whether she has any other regular monthly expenses that might deplete the $2,000.00 per month 12 that she receives in Social Security Disability Income and dependents’ benefits. Without more 13 information, it appears that Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds her monthly expenses by 14 $1,328.00. Finally, in response to question 7, Plaintiff indicates that she has two dependents, but 15 does not describe her relationship with each person and how much she contributes to their 16 support. Because Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information, the Court cannot 17 determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 18 The Court will give Plaintiff another opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis 19 application. The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The 20 Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all 21 applicable questions. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court denies 22 Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice and with leave to refile. 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 27, 2025, to file an 2 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. 3 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district 4 judge that this case be dismissed. 5 6 DATED: September 25, 2025 7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27