Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TAMARA H.,1
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:26-cv-79
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED
that Plaintiff’s Application be DENIED.
To ensure access to courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits an indigent plaintiff to avoid
payment of filing fees if the applicant demonstrates by affidavit the inability to pay such fees.
The United States Supreme Court, in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,
(1948), set forth the legal standards governing applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The
Adkins Court advised that “one must [not] be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of the
statute” and that the statute does not require an individual to “contribute . . . the last dollar they
have or can get.” Id. at 339. The Court explained that “[t]he public would not be profited if
1 Pursuant to General Order 22-01, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases,
any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in social security cases in the Southern District
of Ohio shall refer to plaintiffs only by their first names and last initials.
Case: 2:26-cv-00079-CMV Doc #: 7 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
relieved of paying costs of a particular litigation only to have imposed on it the expense of
supporting the person thereby made an object of public support.” Id. Rather, what is required is a
demonstration via affidavit that “because of his [or her] poverty,” the applicant cannot pay the
fee and continue to provide for the necessities of life. Id. Courts evaluating applications to
proceed in forma pauperis generally consider an applicant’s employment, annual income and
expenses, and any other property or assets the individual possesses. Giles v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 14-CV-11553, 2014 WL 2217136, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2014) (citing Cognetto v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2014WL 358465, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2014)). Courts also
“consistently consider his or her other financial resources, including resources that could be
made available from the applicant’s spouse, or other family members, as well as equity in real
estate and automobiles.” Alisa Marie B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-CV-2622, 2023 WL
6554039, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 18, 2023) (cleaned up); see also Reynolds v. Crawford, No.
1:01–cv–877, 2009 WL 3908911, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2009) (collecting cases reflecting
that “[t]he case law also directs the courts to consider the income and assets of the applicant’s
spouse in assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis.”)
Here, the information set forth in Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis affidavit does not
demonstrate her inability to pay. The application indicates that, although Plaintiff is not
employed, she and her spouse have a combined monthly income of $5,380.70 in salary and
retirement benefits. It also demonstrates that Plaintiff and her spouse have $470 in a joint
checking account and that they own automobiles worth more than $110,000.
In sum, in view of Plaintiff’s assets totaling over $110,000 and checking account funds
sufficient to pay the filing fee, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that,
because of her poverty, she is unable to pay for the costs of this litigation and still provide for
Case: 2:26-cv-00079-CMV Doc #: 7 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
herself. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis be DENIED and that she be ordered to pay the required $405.00 filing fee within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS if she intends to proceed.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). A District Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a District Judge of this Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive
further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:26-cv-00079-CMV Doc #: 7 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>