1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 KIM BENETHER VAUGHN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00144-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 13 v. IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Docs. 2, 4) 15 Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Kim Benether Vaughn (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of an administrative 18 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits 19 under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). 20 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and instead applied to proceed in forma pauperis 22 pursuant to

. (Doc. 2). On February 7, 2025, because Plaintiff’s application 23 demonstrated that her income and resources could be above the poverty threshold and the 24 information provided was insufficient for the Court to determine whether she is entitled to 25 proceed without prepayment of fees in this action, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a long- 26 form application. (Doc. 3). On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed the long-form application to 27 proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). 1 affidavit demonstrating that she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28

(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a 3 privilege and not a right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory 4 Council,

, 198 n.2 (1993); see Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 5 1984) (“permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; 6 denial of in forma pauperis does not violate the applicant’s right to due process”), abrogated on 7 other grounds, Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). A plaintiff need not be absolutely 8 destitute to proceed in forma pauperis and the application is sufficient if it states that due to 9 poverty, the applicant is unable to pay the costs and still be able to provide herself and her 10 dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,

331, 339 (1948). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed without prepayment of 12 fees is an exercise of the district court’s discretion. See Escobedo v. Applebees,

, 13 1236 (9th Cir. 2015). 14 The Court may consider a Plaintiff’s spouse’s financial resources in determining whether 15 she is entitled to in forma pauperis status. Escobedo,

. Plaintiff attests in her 16 applications that her total monthly income is $1,889.00 from social security retirement. (Docs. 17 2 at 1, 4 at 2). Plaintiff states that her spouse’s monthly income amount during the past 12 18 months (and expected next month) is $4,000.00 from disability. (Doc. 4 at 2). Plaintiff states 19 that she and her husband live on a fixed income but are currently in the process of getting a 20 divorce. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff proffers that she and her husband are unemployed and disabled. 21 (Id.). She proffers that her husband has $650.00 in his own checking account. (Id.). Plaintiff 22 proffers that she and her husband own a home valued at $400,000.00 and a 2019 Chevrolet 23 Camaro valued at $20,00.00. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff states that she does not expect any major 24 changes to her monthly income or expenses in her assets or liabilities during the next 12 25 months. (Id. at 5). 26 In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty threshold under § 27 1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the 1 01045-AWI-SAB,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2022) (citing Lint v. City of 2 Boise, No. CV09-72-S-ELJ,

, at *2 (D. Idaho. Apr. 28, 2009) (collecting 3 cases)), F&R adopted,

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022). Plaintiff claims a spouse 4 and no dependents. (Doc. 4 at 3). The 2025 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 contiguous states 5 for a household of two is $21,150. 2025 Poverty Guidelines, 6 https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines (last visited 7 February 10, 2025). Plaintiff and her spouse’s income lie above the poverty threshold. Given 8 Plaintiff’s representation that she is currently in the process of a divorce, her own reported 9 income lies above the poverty threshold for a household of one (i.e., $15,650) with an 10 estimated fixed income of $22,668 a year. Therefore, Plaintiff’s income lies above the poverty 11 threshold. 12 Plaintiff also claims individual monthly expenses totaling $1,952.00, which exceeds her 13 individual reported income. (Doc. 4 at 5). Plaintiff claims the following itemized monthly 14 expenses: $325.00 utilities; $200 food; $25.00 laundry; $100.00 transportation; $65.00 15 homeowner’s or renter’s insurance (American Home Shield); $164.00 motor vehicle insurance 16 (Liberty Mutual Insurance); $499.00 motor vehicle payments (Golden 1 Credit Union); 17 $121.00 credit card payments (CapitalOne Visa); $50.00 installment payments (Macys); $68.00 18 other installment payments (Mission Lane Visa); and $335.00 other payments (2 Visa and 2 19 Master credit card payments). (Id. at 4). 20 Plaintiff’s spouse claims individual monthly expenses totaling $3165.00, which is below 21 his individual reported income. (Doc. 4 at 5). Plaintiff’s spouse claims the following itemized 22 monthly expenses: $2,739.00 rent or home-mortgage payment, inclusive of real estate taxes and 23 property insurance; $200.00 food; $35.00 laundry; and $191.00 insurance (Mutual of Omaha). 24 (Id. at 4). Plaintiff states that she does not expect any major changes to her monthly income or 25 expenses in her assets or liabilities during the next 12 months. (Id. at 5). 26 To be sure, the court is sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff does not have a large income, and also has several expenses to 27 contend with. However, numerous litigants in this court have significant monthly expenditures, and may have to make difficult 1 eliminate, and how to apportion their income between such expenses and litigating an action in federal court. Such difficulties 2 in themselves do not amount to indigency. Core v. California Controllers Office, No. 2:18-cv-O0155-MCE-KJN-PS,

, at 4| *1 (ED. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018). As noted above, Plaintiff states that she does not expect any 5 | major changes to her monthly income or expenses in her assets or liabilities during the next 12 6 | months though she is currently in the process of getting a divorce. (/d. at 5). Plaintiff and her 7 | spouse’s total reported monthly income of $5,889.00 exceeds their total combined monthly g | expenses $5,117.00. Notwithstanding her spouse’s reported income and monthly expenses, her g | application demonstrates that she is able to afford an estimated $1,952.00 in monthly expenses 10 | despite receiving only $1,889.00. Although she may not be wealthy, Plaintiff's household 11 | income, whether individualized or combined with her spouse, does not suggest that she is living 12 | in poverty and that she would not suffer extraordinary hardship from paying the filing fee. 13 | Core,

, at *1. 14 Conclusion and Order 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to make a supplemental filing within 14 days of 16 | entry of this order explaining the discrepancies noted above in her initial and long-form 17 | applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the $405.00 filing 18 | fee for this action in full. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 70) Dated: _ February 10, 2025 | br Pr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28