Dunn v. IRS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALANA DUNN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0963 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA ) PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 14 IRS, et al., ) PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 21 DAYS ) 15 Defendants. ) (Docs. 2, 4, 7) ) 16 17 Alana Dunn seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, which she initiated by filing a 18 complaint on August 5, 2025. (Docs. 1, 2.) The Court found the information provided in the initial 19 application was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s application filed in another case pending before the Court, 20 Dunn, et al., v. Bristol West, et al., 1:25-cv-00563-KES-SAB. (Doc. 3 at 2.) Therefore, the Court 21 ordered Plaintiff to complete the long-form application. (Doc. 3.) After Plaintiff completed the long 22 form (Doc. 4), the magistrate judge found the “information disclosed on her long form application 23 shows that she can afford to pay the filing fee.” (Doc. 6 at 3.) The magistrate judge observed: 24 Plaintiff’s long form application in this case discloses even more income than in the two cases where Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma 25 pauperis were denied [Dunn v. Bristol West, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv- 00563-KES-SAB; Dunn v. Unified District School Clovis, Case No. 1:25- 26 cv-00962-JLT-BAM]. Specifically, she reports monthly employment income of $7,058 + $2,812 for disability benefits (from four children) for 27 a total of $9,870 per month or $118,440 per year.[] (ECF No. 4, pp. 1-2; see ECF No.2, p. 1). Plaintiff reports monthly expenses of $8,103.93.2 28 Thus, Plaintiff earns $1,766.07 more monthly than her average expenses. 1 || Ud., footnote omitted.) Ud.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff could “pay the $405 2 || filing fee and still afford the necessities of life,” and recommended the Court deny the request to 3 || proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) 4 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff 5 || provides information concerning her income since 2020. (See id. at 17.) However, Plaintiff does not 6 || acknowledge the SSI benefits she receives for her four children. Plaintiff does not dispute the findings 7 || of the magistrate judge that her annual household income exceeds $118,000, or otherwise demonstrat 8 || an inability to pay the Court’s filing fee. (See generally Doc. 7.) Consequently, Plaintiff's objection: 9 || do not show either factual or legal errors by the magistrate judge. 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 11 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes the 12 || Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As the magistrate 13 ||judge found, Plaintiff's income is sufficient for her to pay the filing fee and still afford necessities for 14 || herself and her dependents. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 15 || 2004) (a litigant shows indigency when “unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to provide 16 necessities for himself and his dependents”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 19, 2025 (Doc. 3) are ADOPTED 18 full. 19 2. Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2, 4) are DENIED. 20 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 21 days of the date of servic 21 to proceed with this action. 22 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in the Court dismissing the action 23 without prejudice. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ August 25, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28