Nielsen v. Bisignano

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
CRYSTAL N.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-01093-JNP-JCB
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).1 Plaintiff Crystal N. (“Plaintiff”) moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“IFP Statute”).2 For the reasons explained below, the court recommends
denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion and ordering her to pay the full filing fee.3
Under the IFP Statute, the court may authorize a plaintiff to commence a civil case
without payment of the filing fee if she submits an IFP motion that demonstrates a financial
1 ECF No. 5.
2 ECF No. 2.
3 In Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a magistrate judge does not have the authority to enter an
order denying an IFP motion but instead must issue a report and recommendation under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, the court issues this report and recommendation on Plaintiff’s IFP
motion rather than an order.
Case 2:25-cv-01093-JNP-JCB Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
inability to pay the filing fee.4 Under DUCivR 3-2(a)(1)(A), the court may permit a plaintiff to
proceed IFP if the plaintiff’s “monthly income is equal to or below 200% of the United States
poverty guideline as issued each year in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and
Human Services for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia.” When assessing an
IFP motion, the court should consider whether the plaintiff can pay the filing fee and “still be
able to provide [herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.”5 “[P]roceeding [IFP] in a
civil case is a privilege, not a right . . . .”6 “The decision to grant or deny [IFP] status under [the
IFP Statute] lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”7
Plaintiff’s IFP motion does not demonstrate that she is unable to pay the filing fee. To the
contrary, Plaintiff indicates that her spouse earns $8500 per month, which equates to $102,000
per year. That yearly household income is nearly double $53,300, which is 200% of the 2025
United States poverty guideline for a household consisting of Plaintiff, her spouse, and her
daughter.8 Although Plaintiff asserts that she is unemployed, her spouse’s income may be
considered when determining whether she qualifies to proceed IFP.9 Additionally, although
4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); DUCivR 3-2(a)(1); see also Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312; DeBardeleben v.
Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).
5 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (citation modified).
6 White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation modified).
7 Cabrera v. Horgas, 173 F.3d 863 (Table), 1999 WL 241783, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 1999).
8 U.S. DEP ’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN S ERVS ., 2025 P OVERTY GUIDELINES : 48 C ONTIGUOUS S TATES
(ALL STATES EXCEPT ALASKA AND HAWAII) (2025),
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed
-guidelines-2025.pdf (providing that 200% of the 2025 poverty guideline for a household of
three is $53,300).
9 See, e.g., Martin v. A-1 Elec. Heat & Air, No. CIV-16-1348-R, 2016 WL 7744448, at *1 n.2
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 20, 2016) (“Spousal income is an appropriate consideration when making a
Case 2:25-cv-01093-JNP-JCB Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
Plaintiff contends that her household monthly income after taxes is sufficient to cover only her
household monthly expenses, several of those expenses appear to be discretionary.10 For
example, Plaintiff’s monthly household expenses include $75 payments for laundry and dry
cleaning, as well as two $400 payments for balances owed for purchases made through Amazon
and Victoria’s Secret. For those reasons, Plaintiff has the financial ability to pay the full filing fee
and should be required to do so.
RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff fails to establish that she is unable to pay the filing fee, the court
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that her IFP motion11 be DENIED. If that recommendation is
adopted, the court FURTHER RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the full filing fee
within 14 days of the order adopting the recommendation and that she be warned that her failure
to do so will result in this case being dismissed without prejudice.
determination as to whether an applicant qualifies to proceed [IFP].”), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Martin v. A-A Elec. Heat & Air, No. CIV-16-1348-R, 2017
WL 150041 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2017); Jackson v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, No. 14-4034, 2014 WL
2761142, at *1 (D. Kan. June 18, 2014) (denying the plaintiff’s IFP motion based, in part, on the
plaintiff’s spouse’s current employment and “substantial annual salary”); Zhu v. Countrywide
Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1156 (D. Kan. 2001) (citing numerous cases for the
proposition that “courts have found that the income and assets of close family members are
relevant to a determination of indigency under [the IFP Statute]”).
10 See, e.g., Jackson, 2014 WL 2761142, at *1 (relying on discretionary expenses as a reason for
denying the plaintiff’s IFP motion).
11 ECF No. 2.
Case 2:25-cv-01093-JNP-JCB Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Copies of this Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties, who are hereby
notified of their right to object.12 The parties must file any objections to this Report and
Recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy of it.13 Failure to object may
constitute waiver of objections upon subsequent review.
DATED this 30th day of December 2025.
BY THE COURT:
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
12 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
13 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Case 2:25-cv-01093-JNP-JCB Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4