Aragones v. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC.
1:25-cv-00744
| E.D. Cal. | Jul 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Reynaldo Aragones filed a lawsuit against Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC alleging erroneous reporting of his debt.
- Aragones proceeded pro se (representing himself) and requested to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), i.e., without paying the standard $405 filing fee, due to financial hardship.
- The IFP application disclosed that Aragones receives gross monthly wages of $6,463, with a net take-home pay of $4,260.09, and holds $1,400 in bank accounts.
- The Court reviewed the financial affidavit submitted with the IFP application to assess eligibility for fee waiver under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed the application, considering whether the plaintiff's income and assets were sufficient to pay the filing fee.
- The Court issued findings and recommendations to deny the IFP request based on Aragones’s ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff should be granted IFP status under § 1915 | Aragones claims inability to pay | Not stated in the opinion | Request denied; plaintiff has sufficient income/assets |
| Standard for granting IFP status (non-prisoner applicability) | Non-prisoners should qualify | Not stated in the opinion | Statute applies to non-prisoners, but discretion applies |
| Whether plaintiff must pay the full $405 filing fee to proceed | Plaintiff requests waiver | Not stated in the opinion | Plaintiff must pay full fee or risk case dismissal |
| Process for contesting findings | Not specified | Not specified | Plaintiff may file objections within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Hymas v. United States DOI, 73 F.4th 763 (9th Cir. 2023) (clarifies that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 standard for IFP status applies to both prisoner and non-prisoner applicants)
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (confirms that § 1915 applies to non-prisoner litigants)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (addresses waiver of appellate rights if objections not timely filed)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (addresses appellate procedure following Magistrate Judge's recommendations)