1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 HALLIE MANNETTE B., Case No. 2:24-cv-02010-NJK

9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 1] 11 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to

to proceed in forma pauperis. 14 Docket No. 1. 15 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and 16 costs or security therefor, by a person who has shown that she is unable to pay such costs. 28

(a)(1). A determination of whether the plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a 18 matter left to the discretion of the court. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s 19 Advisory Council,

(1993). In exercising that discretion, the Court evaluates 20 the income and assets to which the plaintiff has access, including those of a spouse. See, e.g., 21 Flores v. Colvin,

, at *3-4 (D. Nev. May 22, 2014). While an 22 applicant need not be totally destitute to qualify for in forma pauperis status, she must demonstrate 23 that she cannot pay those costs while still providing for the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. 24 DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948). 25 The application in this case identifies income of $4,000 - $5,000 per month from Plaintiff’s 26 spouse, Docket No. 1 at 1, 2, which significantly exceeds the federal poverty guidelines for a 27 family of three, cf. Andrea L.M. v. O’Malley, 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2 (D. Nev. July 3, 28 2024). That monthly income is also well above the amounts that have led to denial of in forma 1|| pauperis status, see, e.g., Brunson v. Soc. Sec.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2019) 2| (denying in forma pauperis status based on monthly income of $1,397), adopted,

}, 6700193 (D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2019), and the Court has rejected similar requests, see Andrea L.M., 4} 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2. Moreover, while the application identifies substantial 5|| monthly expenses, they still fall short of the outer-range of income identified ($5,000) and they 6|| appear to be excessive at any rate, such as identifying $1,000 for monthly utility expenses. At 7| bottom, a financial picture has not been painted that a family of three with a monthly household 8] income of $4,000 - $5,000 cannot afford to pay the $405 filing fee. 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee by January 16, 2025. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 4, 2024

Nancy J. Koppe, * 14 United Statés-Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28