Hunt v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
J. E. H,1 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-640-CMS
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, )
Commissioner, )
Social Security Administration, )
)
Defendant. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). Doc. 2. This matter has been assigned to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to In re: Social Security Cases, G.O. 23-1 (W.D.
Okla.) (eff. Jan. 6, 2023). After careful review, the undersigned recommends that the Court
deny the Application.
I. Discussion
The filing fee for a civil case in this Court is $405.00.2 Courts have discretion in
deciding whether to grant a civil litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).
Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right—fundamental or otherwise.”
1 The Court refers to Plaintiff by initials to protect Plaintiff’s privacy because of the
sensitive nature of medical and personal information disclosed in Social Security cases.
2 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 plus an administrative fee of $55.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees, Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:26-cv-00640-CMS Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 5

2
White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation modified). To succeed
on an application to proceed IFP, the movant must show “a financial inability to pay the
required filing fees.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
A. Factors for consideration
Factors the Court may consider in exercising its discretion include “whether the
complaint is frivolous or malicious; whether the case concerns a prisoner, with special
concern placed on prisoner complaints; and the nature of the mandatory and discretionary
demands on the applicant’s financial resources.” Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police
Dep’t, 24 F. App’x 977, 979 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation modified). Plaintiff appeals the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. Doc. 1. But even assuming the
complaint is not frivolous or malicious, the remaining factors weigh against granting
Plaintiff’s Application. Plaintiff is not a prisoner, so the special concerns attendant to
prisoner cases do not apply.
As to the financial-resources factor, the Court may consider both income and assets.
See Lister, 408 F.3d at 1311 (noting that an applicant’s income, assets, and expenses are
relevant for consideration of an IFP application). With respect to income, the Court
considers the degree to which Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds his monthly obligations.
See Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of IFP
status, in part, because plaintiff’s “monthly income exceeded his monthly obligations by
several hundred dollars”).
Case 5:26-cv-00640-CMS Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 5

3
B. Plaintiff’s financial resources
The undersigned has carefully considered Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses
as listed on his Application. Plaintiff attests that his weekly take-home pay is $180.00,
which equates to approximately $780.00 per month. Doc. 2 at 1. Plaintiff also receives a
monthly disability payment of $4,044.00. Id. Though he attests that he has minimal
monetary assets, he states he has approximately $20,000.00 in equity in his home and
approximately $2,000.00 in equity in his vehicle. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further attests he has
$4,304.00 in monthly expenses:
• mortgage, $786.00;
• electric, $220.00;
• internet, $50.00;
• water, $75.00;
• gas, $50.00
• cell phone, $190.00
• groceries, $1,200.00;
• car insurance, $233.00;
• subscriptions, $150.00;
• pet supplies, $50.00;
• household items, $400.00
• health insurance, $300.00;
• medical expenses, $200.00;
• gas for vehicle, $400.00.
Id.
Case 5:26-cv-00640-CMS Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Based on the information provided in the Application, the undersigned recommends
the Court deny the Application. Plaintiff reports monthly take-home pay that exceeds his
monthly expenses by more than $500.00. In addition, Plaintiff has considerable assets.
“While this Court does not suggest that the plaintiff is wealthy or has lots of money to
spend, he does appear to have discretionary income and/or assets and it appears that [he]
has the ability to spend [his] discretionary funds on filing fees if he desires.” Williams v.
Oklahoma, No. CIV-16-163-R, 2016 WL 7665657, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 23, 2016)
(citation modified) (R&R), adopted, 2016 WL 7665658 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2016), aff’d,
667 F. App’x 733 (10th Cir. 2016). The undersigned therefore finds Plaintiff has not shown
“a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
II. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
Doc. 2. The undersigned further recommends that if Plaintiff does not pay the $405.00
filing fee in full to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of any order adopting this Report and
Recommendation, this action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 3.3(e).
Plaintiff is advised of his right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See
28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of this Court by April 14,
2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives
the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and
Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 5:26-cv-00640-CMS Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00640-CMS Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 5 of 5