Davidson v. Commissioner Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
J.D.,1
Plaintiff.
V.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00146
OPINION AND ORDER
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently
codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have
meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989). The statute “allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in
federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter
alia, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit.” Id. Because “a litigant whose
filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks
an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits,” id., federal courts are authorized to dismiss a claim filed in forma
pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is
untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).
“To determine whether a particular order causes undue financial hardship,
a court must examine the financial condition of the in forma pauperis applicant.
This entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs’ financial resources,
1 On May 1, 2023, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the
Judicial Conference of the United States issued a memorandum recommending that
courts adopt a local practice of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernment party in Social Security opinions. This court has taken that guidance a
step further in the interest of claimant’s privacy and will use only initials in public
opinions.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 07, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00146 Document 7 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
including 	whether 	the 	expenses 	are 	discretionary 	or 	mandatory.” 	Prows 	v.
Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). “Whether the litigant is unable to pay
the costs associated with initiating a lawsuit . . . depends in part on the litigant’s
actual ability to get funds from a spouse, a parent, an adult sibling, or other next
friend.” Jones v. Torres, No. 3:24-cv-3099, 2025 WL 374937, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
10, 2025) (cleaned up). “A financial affidavit that is either incomplete or internally
inconsistent is insufficient to find that a movant qualifies for leave to proceed IFP.”
Id. at *2 (cleaned up).
“Spousal income and spousal expenses are appropriate considerations in
determining in forma pauperis status.” Johnson v. James, No. CV 3:18-3508, 2019
WL 343723, at *1 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2019) (collecting cases). Here, J.D. claims to have
no income, yet she has $400.17 on hand, owns a home and a car, and can cover
approximately $700 in monthly expenses through her husband’s income. See
Dkt. 2 at 2. Based on the record before me, it does not appear that J.D. would have
to choose between life’s necessities and abandoning a potentially meritorious
claim. See id. Accordingly, J.D.’s application for IFP status (Dkt. 2) is DENIED. If
J.D. believes that, considering her spouse’s monthly income compared to the total
family expenses, she would qualify for IFP status, then J.D. may resubmit an
amended application that fully discloses her financial situation, which includes her
husband’s income. Otherwise, J.D. must pay the filing fee to proceed with her
appeal of the Commissioner’s decision.
SIGNED this 	day of May 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00146 Document 7 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2