1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 WENDY WOLKENSTEIN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01138-APG-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v. [Docket No. 1]

10 DAN HEINRICH, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant to

to proceed in forma 13 pauperis. Docket No. 1. 14 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and 15 costs, or security therefor, by a person who has shown an inability to pay such costs.

1915(a)(1). A determination of whether the plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a matter left 17 to the discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Flores v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93236, at *2 (D. 18 Nev. May 22, 2014), adopted, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93234 (D. Nev. July 9, 2014). While an 19 applicant need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, the applicant 20 must demonstrate an inability to pay those costs while still providing for the necessities of life. 21 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948). 22 Only Plaintiff Wendy Wolkenstein filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 The 23 application identifies annual wages of $70,000, along with an additional $10,000 annual profit 24 from rental property, see Docket No. 1 at 1, which greatly exceeds the federal poverty guidelines 25 for a family of five, cf. Andrea L.M. v. O’Malley, 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2 (D. Nev. 26 1 When multiple plaintiffs join in the same suit, they must each file an application to 27 proceed in forma pauperis and each Plaintiff must qualify for in forma pauperis status. See, e.g., Remmert v. Newsome,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023). Given the ability to pay 28 found herein, the Court need not order Plaintiff Knepp to file her own application. 1} July 3, 2024). That monthly income is also well above the amounts that have led to denial of in 2|| forma pauperis status, see, e.g., Brunson v. Soc. Sec.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 3|| 2019) (denying in forma pauperis status based on monthly income of $1,397), adopted,

(D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2019), and the Court has rejected similar requests, see Andrea L.M., 5|| 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2. Moreover, the application identifies only $1,800 in monthly expenses, which are amply covered by the income identified. See Docket No. 1 at 2. Lastly, the 7|| application identifies $1,000 in cash or bank accounts, along with $20,000 in stocks. Jd.” In short, 8|| Plaintiff Wolkenstein is able to pay the filing fee. 9 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the application to proceed in forma 10] pauperis be DENIED and that Plaintiffs be required to pay the filing fee in prompt fashion within 11] a specified timeframe. 12 Dated: June 27, 2025 13 fi fh x a Nancy J A > 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 NOTICE 17 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 18] to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 19] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 20|| days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 21] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 22|| F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ ? The application is incomplete given that Plaintiff Wolkenstein identifies a mortgage, but fails to identify owned real estate and the value thereof. See

.