Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01436-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIE D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01436-AHG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 2]
On March 4, 2026, Plaintiff Marie D. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the
Commissioner of Social Security, Frank Bisignano, seeking judicial review of the
Commissioner’s final administrative decision denying her application for Social Security
disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income for lack of disability. ECF
No. 1. Along with her Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. Upon review, the Court finds
the application insufficient to determine whether Plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to
pay the civil filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The Court will therefore deny
the motion without prejudice to refiling.
A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP in this Court must provide a signed affidavit “that
includes a statement of all assets [showing] inability to pay initial fees or give security.”
Case 3:26-cv-01436-AHG Document 4 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
3:26-cv-01436-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CivLR 3.2(a). Among other requirements, the affidavit must contain “[a] statement as to
current employment including the amount of wages or salary per month and the name and
address of the current employer.” CivLR 3.2(a)(1). The affidavit must also include a
statement as to any money in a financial institution, including checking, savings, and any
other accounts. CivLR 3.2(a)(4). Additionally, Form AO 239—the Court’s Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)—states in the
instructions that the applicant must “[c]omplete all questions in this application and then
sign it. Do not leave any blanks: if the answer to a question is “0,” “none,” or “not
applicable (N/A),” write that response.” See ECF No. 2 at 1 (emphasis added).
Despite these requirements, Plaintiff’s application contains several gaps and
inconsistencies that prevent the Court from determining whether Plaintiff qualifies to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee. First, the income section of the application
appears inconsistent. Plaintiff lists monthly employment income of approximately $1,000
and retirement income of approximately $1,676 but reports total monthly income of only
$1,676. ECF No. 2 at 1–2. Based on the amounts listed, Plaintiff’s total monthly income
appears to be approximately $2,676. This discrepancy prevents the Court from evaluating
Plaintiff’s financial resources.
Second, the expenses section of the application appears incomplete and contains
mathematical errors. Plaintiff lists several monthly expenses—including rent, utilities,
food, clothing, and medical expenses—but reports total monthly expenses of $0.00. Id. at
4–5. The itemized expenses listed on the form clearly exceed $0.00, and the Court cannot
determine Plaintiff’s actual monthly expenses.
Third, several sections of the application are incomplete or internally inconsistent.
Plaintiff reports receiving employment income but lists “N/A” for employment history over
the past two years. Id. at 2. Additionally, although Plaintiff reports possessing
approximately $500 in cash, the section requesting information regarding bank accounts or
other financial institutions is blank, making it unclear whether Plaintiff maintains any
accounts. Id. Further, Plaintiff lists credit card debt of $25,000 but does not list any
Case 3:26-cv-01436-AHG Document 4 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
3:26-cv-01436-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
corresponding monthly installment payments. Id. at 4.
“When a claim of poverty is made under section 1915[,] ‘it is proper and indeed
essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some
particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940
(9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit does not state the facts with sufficient
particularity and definiteness to allow the Court to verify Plaintiff’s indigence.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to
Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2). To proceed with this action, no later than March 24, 2026,
Plaintiff must either (1) pay the civil filing fee, or (2) file a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP
that fully completes all sections of the application and provides complete and accurate
financial information in compliance with Civil Local Rule 3.2(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01436-AHG Document 4 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3