Mason v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EVAN C. MASON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-444-SM
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of 	)
Social Security, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, represented by counsel, initiated this action to appeal the
Social Security Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Doc. 1.1 Plaintiff has applied
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of
fees and costs, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. 2. For the following reasons, the
undersigned recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP application.
I. 	Discussion.
Plaintiff has applied to proceed IFP. Id. The filing fee in civil cases is
$405.00.2
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
2 	The filing fee is $350.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, an
administrative fee of $55.00 must be paid. See Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees,
Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:26-cv-00444-SM Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff states in his IFP application that his sources of income include
employment ($375.00 this month and $2,500.00 next month), income from real
property ($4,400 a month), and disability income ($4,650.00 a month). Id. at 1-
2. He currently has $4,000.00 in a checking account and his monthly expenses
total $10,176.00. Id. at 2-5.
Proceeding in forma pauperis “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right—
fundamental or otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th
Cir. 1998). And the Court evaluates “an application to proceed in forma
pauperis . . . in light of the applicant’s present financial status.” Scherer v.
Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008). Here, “the documentation
Plaintiff has provided does not indicate an inability to pay the required filing
fee.” Raynor v. Wentz, 357 F. App’x 968, 969 (10th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s monthly expenses are not more than his monthly income. The
record thus establishes that Plaintiff is able to pay both for the necessities of
life and for those lawsuits that he deems important and that his allegation of
poverty, without more, does not accurately characterize his situation. See, e.g.,
Burns v. United States, 345 F. App’x 328, 329 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding district
court had not abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to proceed IFP
where the plaintiff’s “own financial disclosure form show[ed] that he ha[d]
funds available to pay the necessary fees”). “While this Court does not suggest
Case 5:26-cv-00444-SM Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
that [Plaintiff] is wealthy or has lots of money to spend,” the Court finds
Plaintiff could spend his discretionary funds on filing fees if he desires. Lewis
v. Ctr. Mkt., 2009 WL 5217343, at *3 (D.N.M. Oct. 29, 2009), aff’d, 378 F. App’x
780 (10th Cir. 2010). And Plaintiff “has given [the Court] no indication” that
such a determination is incorrect. Burns, 345 F. App’x at 329.
The 	undersigned 	thus 	recommends 	the 	Court 	deny 	Plaintiff’s 	IFP
application. 	Doc. 	2. 	Should 	the 	Court 	adopt 	this 	recommendation, 	the
undersigned further recommends the Court dismiss this case without prejudice
unless Plaintiff pays the full filing fee within twenty-one days of that order.
See LCvR3.3(e).
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
deny Plaintiff’s IFP application. Doc. 2.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before March
24, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The undersigned also advises Plaintiff that failure to make a timely objection
to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of
both factual and legal questions contained herein. See Moore v. United States,
950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 5:26-cv-00444-SM Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00444-SM Document 6 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 4