1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 ERNEST MICHAEL SANCHEZ, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01985-JAD-NJK 6 Plaintiffs, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 v. 8 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE 9 ASSOCIATION, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant to

to proceed in forma 12 pauperis. Docket No. 1. 13 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and 14 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 16 to the discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Flores v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93236, at *2 (D. 17 Nev. May 22, 2014), adopted, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93234 (D. Nev. July 9, 2014). While an 18 applicant need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, the applicant 19 must demonstrate an inability to pay those costs while still providing for the necessities of life. 20 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948). 21 Only Plaintiff Ernest Michael Sanchez filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 22 The application identifies monthly wages of $2,297.96, which exceeds the federal poverty 23 guidelines for a family of two, cf. Andrea L.M. v. O’Malley, 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2 24 (D. Nev. July 3, 2024) (comparing income to poverty guidelines). That monthly income is also 25 well above the amounts that have led to denial of in forma pauperis status, see, e.g., Brunson v. 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 Eva Kristine Sanchez to file her own application. 1} Soc. Sec.,

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

(D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2019), and the 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 9] a specified timeframe. 10 Dated: November 12, 2025 a a Nancy J. Kopp& 12 United Stine Mavist rate Judge 13 14 NOTICE 15 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 16] to this case pursuant to

(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 18] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 19] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 20] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 ? Additionally, Local Rule 15-1(a) provides that a “proposed amended pleading must be complete in and of itself without reference to the superseded pleading and must include copies 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 in 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). 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. 27| 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties”); see also Crisp v. Caruso, No. 14- CV-14132,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2015) (“This Rule applies equally to 28]| amended complaints”).