1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Kimberly Leshune Jordan, Case No. 2:25-cv-01880-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 7 PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 8) AND SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1-1) Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social 8 Security,

9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff Kimberly Leshune Jordan filed an Amended Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma 12 Pauperis (“IFP”) following the Court’s denial of her prior IFP application.1 ECF Nos. 7, 8. This is a 13 social security appeal and plaintiff is represented by counsel. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s IFP 14 application. 15 I. WHETHER PLAINTIFF CAN PROCEED IFP 16 a. General Legal Principles 17 Under

(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 18 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 19 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 20 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 21 Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 22 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 23

24 1 Although the Motion is framed as a “Motion to Amend” on the docket for this matter (see ECF No. 8), the Court interprets this Motion as an Amended IFP Application. Defendant also did not file any 25 opposition to the Motion. 1 1 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 2 Co.,

(1948). 3 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 4 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981) 5 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 6 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 7 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn,

(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 8 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 9 verify his poverty adequately”). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in themselves for 10 denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse,

(7th Cir. 11 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma pauperis 12 application). 13 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 14 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 15 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 16 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, more 17 information is needed, or it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for 18 determining whether the applicant qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to 19 submit the Long Form, the correct form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the 20 information requested in the Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the 21 applicant's financial status. See e.g., Greco v. NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 2:15-cv-001370- 22 MMD-PAL,

, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub 23 nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 2:15-cv-001370-MMD-PAL,

(D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 24 // 25 2 1 b. Analysis 2 The Court denied plaintiff’s prior IFP application and ordered her to file a IFP long-form 3 application or pay the filing fee if she wanted to proceed in this matter. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff’s original 4 IFP was denied because plaintiff did not sufficiently outline how much she receives in Section 8 benefits 5 and how much her friend helps pay for the monthly expenses disclosed in the original IFP application. 6

7 The Court now finds that plaintiff now qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff filed a long-form IFP 8 application. ECF No. 8. She discloses that she receives $2,150 in Section 8 benefits and that her friend 9 helps pay for her monthly rent, utilities, home maintenance, laundry, transportation and insurance 10 expenses (paying a total of $1,625).

. Plaintiff lists $297 in public assistance and the $2,150 in 11 Section 8 benefits as her sole sources of income.

. Thus, plaintiff uses all of her monthly 12 income and relies on her friend’s financial support to pay her listed monthly expenses. Therefore, the 13 Court finds that plaintiff addresses the discrepancies in her prior IFP application and adequately shows 14 she “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”

(a)(1). Plaintiff may proceed 15 with this action without paying the filing fee. 16 II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF STATES A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM 17 a. Legal Standard 18 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint 19 pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally 20 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief 21 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915(e)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 22 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 23 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 24 25 3 1 In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material 2 allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the 3 plaintiff. Russell v. Landrieu,

, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). When a court dismisses a complaint 4 under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing 5 its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by 6 amendment. See Cato v. United States,

, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 7 b. Complaint 8 Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 9 Administration. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled as that term is defined in the Social 10 Security Act, and that she filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Id. The Commissioner 11 denied the application. Id. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not supported by 12 the evidence. Id. Plaintiff has appealed the decision of the Commissioner to this Court. Id. 13 Plaintiff may appeal to this Court the Commissioner’s denial of her application for Disability 14 Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See

. This Court has 15 jurisdiction over the matter.

Construing plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, 16 the Court finds that plaintiff has asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Russell,

. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 4 1 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 4 permitted to maintain this action without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the 5 giving of security. 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The complaint shall be 7 served on the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social 8 Security Actions under

(g). 9 3. The Court accepts defendant counsel’s Notice of Appearance (ECF No. 9) and filings (ECF 10 Nos. 10, 11) as proper given that the IFP application has now been granted. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: December 3, 2025. Jeep _

14 Hon, JMaximiligho D. Céuvillier, II 15 Unked States/Magistrate Judge NOTICE sy 16 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

19 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 50 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985).

This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2)

33 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District

Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst,

1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

1 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 2 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 3 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 4 result in dismissal of the action. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6