Dunn v. IRS

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALANA DUNN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00963-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 11 ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE v. 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IRS, et al., RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 Defendants. APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 PAUPERIS BE DENIED 15 (ECF Nos. 2, 4) 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Alana Dunn filed this civil case against the IRS and other Defendants on August 20 5, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff’s initial in forma pauperis (IFP) application, submitted on the Court’s 21 “short form,” was inconsistent with information presented in one of Plaintiff’s other recent cases, 22 or otherwise unclear, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a “long form” IFP application, which she 23 did on August 14, 2025 (ECF Nos. 3, 4). 24 As explained below, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s IFP applications be denied 25 and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee to proceed with this action. 26 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a pro se plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of fees 28 1 by submitting “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the 2 person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” See Flores v. California Corr. 3 Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-1509-NONE-JLT, 2020 WL 8821643, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 4 2020) (noting that § 1915(a)(1) applies to non-prisoner plaintiffs). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 5 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). And 6 “when a claim of poverty is made . . . it is proper and indeed essential for the supporting 7 affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 8 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and 9 citation omitted). 10 “[T]here is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when 11 someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235. However, in assessing 12 whether a certain income level meets the standard to grant IFP status, courts look to the federal 13 poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. See, 14 e.g., Boulas v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv-01163-LJOBAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 n.1 15 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty guidelines to deny IFP application). 16 Lastly, under § 1915(e)(2)(A), a “court shall dismiss” a case if it determines that “the 17 allegation of poverty is untrue.” 18 III. ORDERS DENYING IFP IN OTHER CASES 19 Notably, Plaintiff was recently denied IFP status in two other cases in this District based 20 on information signed under penalty of perjury. Dunn, et al., v. Bristol West, et al., 1:25-cv- 21 00563-KES-SAB (ECF Nos. 8, 13); Dunn v. Unified District School Clovis, et al., 1:25-cv- 22 00962-JLT-BAM (ECF Nos, 3, 5). 23 In the first case, 1:25-cv-00563, Plaintiff was found to be able to afford the filing fee because her long form application showed that her average monthly income was $8,580 or 24 $102,960 per year, with this yearly income being “nearly three times the poverty guideline for a 25 five person household ($37,650).” (ECF No. 8, p. 3). And while her “claimed expenses per month 26 exceed[ed] her claimed monthly income,” the information provided showed that Plaintiff could 27 “pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses,” such as her “monthly recreational 28 1 expenses exceeding $500.” (Id. at 4). 2 In the second case, 1:25-cv-00962, Plaintiff was found to be able to afford the filing fee 3 because her long form application showed that her average monthly income was $7,607.90 or 4 $91,294.80 per year, with this yearly income being “almost two and a half times the poverty guideline for a five-person household ($37,650.00).” (ECF No. 3, p. 3). And while Plaintiff 5 reported significant monthly expenses, it did “not appear that Plaintiff would be rendered 6 destitute by paying the filing fee of $405.” (Id.). 7 IV. ANALYSIS 8 The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because information 9 disclosed on her long form application shows that she can afford to pay the filing fee. 10 In fact, Plaintiff’s long form application in this case discloses even more income than in 11 the two cases where Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis were denied. Specifically, 12 she reports monthly employment income of $7,058 + $2,812 for disability benefits (from four 13 children) for a total of $9,870 per month or $118,440 per year.1 (ECF No. 4, pp. 1-2; see ECF No. 14 2, p. 1). Plaintiff reports monthly expenses of $8,103.93.2 Thus, Plaintiff earns $1,766.07 more 15 monthly than her average expenses. Notably, Plaintiff’s $118,440 yearly income is about 3 times 16 higher than the poverty guideline for a five-person household ($37,650.00). 2025 Poverty 17 Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines (last 18 visited August 18, 2025). 19 Because Plaintiff’s disclosures reveal that she can pay the $405 filing fee and still afford 20 the necessities of life, the Court will recommend that her IFP applications be denied. 21 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to assign a 23 District Judge to this case. 24 1 There are inconsistencies and uncertainties among the various IFP applications that Plaintiff has filed in 25 this District. For example, she is now reporting a monthly income of $2,812 for disability benefits, while in 1:25-cv-563 she reported the much higher amount of $3,980 per month. Additionally, Plaintiff now 26 reports owing $50,000 on her vehicle. But in June 2025 in 1:25-cv-563, she reported owing $42,500.. 2 This amount is calculated as follows: $2510 (rent or mortgage payment) + $1045 (utilities) + $300 (home 27 maintenance) + $1,300 (food) + $200 (clothing) + $100 (laundry) + $50 (medical) + $450 (transportation) + $100 (recreation) + $78 (car insurance) + $229 (two credit accounts) + $626.93 (furniture) + $1,115 28 (vehicle payments that Plaintiff lists on the form (albeit not in the expenses section)) = $8,103.93. 1 And for the reasons given above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 2 1. Plaintiff's IFP applications be denied. (ECF Nos. 2, 4). 3 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405 filing fee for this action. 4 3. Plaintiff be advised that failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of 5 this action. 6 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 10 Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) 11 | Pages. including exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 | time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 13 | (th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 | Dated: _ August 18, 2025 [Jee Sy □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28