Maye v. Bisignano

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KENETTA M., as Heir and Representative Case No.: 3:25-cv-01770-VET 11 of the Estate of Kenneth Edward M.,1 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 13 v. DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT 14 PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS FRANK BISIGNANO, 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Doc. No. 3] 16 Defendant. 17 18 On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff Kenneta M. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, seeking judicial 19 review of Commissioner Frank Bisignano’s final administrative decision denying Kenneth 20 Edward M.’s application for disability insurance benefits. Doc. No. 1. Before the Court is 21 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs under 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 3 (“IFP Application”). For the reasons stated below, the Court 23 DENIES the IFP Application. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 28 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Except for writ of habeas corpus applications, all parties instituting a civil action, 3 suit, or proceeding in a United States district court must pay a filing fee of $405.2 See 28 4 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without paying the filing fee only if the party is 5 granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez 6 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 7 To proceed IFP, an applicant does not need to be “absolutely destitute” but must 8 adequately prove their indigence. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 9 339–40 (1948). To that end, an applicant must provide the Court with a signed affidavit 10 “that includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give 11 security.” CivLR 3.2.a. The affidavit proving indigence should allege “that the affiant 12 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 13 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see also Jefferson v. 14 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) (an adequate affidavit should state 15 supporting facts “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty”). No exact formula is 16 “set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 17 earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. Consequently, courts must evaluate IFP 18 requests on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 1235–36 (declining to implement a general 19 benchmark of “twenty percent of monthly household income”); see also Cal. Men’s Colony 20 v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that district courts evaluate 21 indigency based upon available facts and by exercise of their “sound discretion”), rev’d on 22 23 24 25 2 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 26 fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also U. S. COURTS, DISTRICT COURT MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), available at 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee- schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave 28 1 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993); Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 2 1974). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Plaintiff’s IFP Application does not demonstrate that she is unable to pay the filing 5 fee and still afford the necessities of life. Specifically, Plaintiff does not have a spouse and 6 works two jobs to pay for living expenses. Doc. No. 3 at 2, 5. Plaintiff’s average monthly 7 income for the past 12 months (July 2024 to July 2025) was $4,692.00. Id. at 2. 8 Additionally, Plaintiff expected her monthly income for the month of August 2025 to 9 remain the same, i.e., $4,692.00. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has $85.00 in a checking account and 10 lists a 2016 Hyundai Veloster, with an estimated value of $2,617.00 to $10,001.00, as her 11 only asset. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff’s monthly expenses total $3,829.00,3 and include, among 12 other items, $2,065.00 for rent and utilities and $350.00 for food. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff does 13 not expect any major changes to her monthly income, expenses, assets, or liabilities in the 14 next 12 months. Id. at 5. Thus, after deducting monthly expenses, Plaintiff has an excess 15 of approximately $863.00 per month. 16 Under these circumstances, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court finds that 17 Plaintiff’s income is sufficient to pay the one-time filing fee of $405 and still afford the 18 necessities of life. See Segobia v. Saul, No. 19-CV-1661-NLS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19 156170, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) (denying plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion 20 where his monthly income exceeded his monthly expenses by $600); Riegel v. Colvin, No. 21 15-CV-1342-W-MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102117, at *4‒5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015) 22 (denying plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion where she had “a net-positive monthly 23 household source of money of approximately $170.00”); Ford v. Midland Funding LLC, 24 25 3 The IFP Application lists “$2008” as Plaintiff’s average monthly “clothing” expense. 26 Doc. No. 3 at 4. Considering that Plaintiff represents her total monthly expenses to be 27 $3,829.00, the clothing expense figure appears to be a typographical error and, based on the Court’s calculations, Plaintiff’s monthly clothing expense is likely $208 and not 28 1 9-CV-2349-JLS-AGS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55036, at *2—3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2 ||2020) (denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis where plaintiff's gross monthly 3 |}income was $2,700 and monthly expenses were $2,700, including a monthly clothing 4 || budget of $600). 5 CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Application. On or before 7 || October 9, 2025, Plaintiff must pay the requisite filing fee, otherwise the case may be 8 || dismissed. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. { r= Sa 10 Dated: September 9, 2025 1 Honorable Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28