Ernest Michael Sanchez, et al. v. Government National Mortgage Association, et...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ERNEST MICHAEL SANCHEZ, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01985-JAD-NJK Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 On 11/12/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [ECF No. 6]: Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1.

The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs, or security therefor, by a person who has shown an inability to pay such costs. 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(a)(1). A determination of whether the plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a matter left to the discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Flores v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93236, at *2 (D.

Nev. May 22, 2014), adopted, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93234 (D. Nev. July 9, 2014). While an applicant need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, the applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay those costs while still providing for the necessities of life.

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

Only Plaintiff Ernest Michael Sanchez filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 The application identifies monthly wages of $2,297.96, which exceeds the federal poverty guidelines for a family of two, cf. Andrea L.M. v. O’Malley, 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2 (D. Nev. July 3, 2024) (comparing income to poverty guidelines). That monthly income is also well above the amounts that have led to denial of in forma pauperis status, see, e.g., Brunson v. When multiple plaintiffs join in the same suit, they must each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and each Plaintiff must qualify for in forma pauperis status. See, e.g., Remmert v. Newsome, 2023 WL 1806277, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023). Given the ability to pay found herein, the Court need not order Plaintiff Eva Kristine Sanchez to file her own application.

1}, Soc. Sec., 2019 WL 6709544, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2019) (denying in forma pauperis status 2|| based on monthly income of $1,397), adopted, 2019 WL 6700193 (D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2019), and the 3}, Court has rejected similar requests, see Andrea L.M., 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2.

4! Moreover, the application identifies only $1,825 in monthly expenses, which are amply covered 5|| by the income identified. See Docket No. 1 at 3. In short, Plaintiff Sanchez is able to pay the 6| filing fee.’

7 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the application to proceed in forma 8|| pauperis be DENIED and that Plaintiffs be required to pay the filing fee in prompt fashion within a specified timeframe.

10 Dated: November 12, 2025 a a Nancy J. Kopp& 12 United Stine Mavist rate Judge ORDER 13 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 11/26/2025, and no party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The filing fee has now been paid. ECF No. 8. Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is ADOPTED in its entirety, and the application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.

CJ Poe 3]. US. District caro Dated: December 1,52825 2 woe _ . 66. . completeN ane OF Without reference FO Whe saperseded pleading and must Mcladecopies OF all exhibits referred to in the proposed amended pleading.” Plaintiffs filed multiple amended complaints, see Docket Nos. 3, 5, the most recent of which adds defendants who were not included 26| 1n the previous complaints, but fails to include all named defendants. See Docket No. 5. Therefore, the amended complaint is not “complete in and of itself.” See id.; see also Local Rule 15-1(a).

27|| Moreover, the amended complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) because it does not include the names of all the parties in its title. See Docket No. 5 at 1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 28|| 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties”); see also Crisp v. Caruso, No. 14- CV-14132, 2015 WL 9489605, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2015) (“This Rule applies equally to amended complaints”).