Borges v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-01323

Borges, appearing pro se, filed a Social Security-related action and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Court must determine indigence under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), (e)(2).
Borges’s IFP motion was largely blank, lacking income, expenses, and asset information.
Borges alleges the ALJ biased against her and seeks reinstatement of disability benefits.
Court cannot confirm indigence or whether the action is frivolous without additional information; exhaustion issues are implicated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IFP motion should be granted given the record.	Borges is unemployed and cannot pay costs.	Record is incomplete; cannot determine indigence.	Denied without prejudice; may refile with complete IFP information.
Whether the complaint shows a nonfrivolous claim and proper exhaustion.	Disability benefits were wrongfully denied; ALJ biased.	Unclear if exhaustion to Appeals Council occurred; frivolousness not established.	Cannot determine frivolity or exhaustion; require amended complaint and IFP revival.
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing suit.	Not stated.	Exhaustion appears necessary before judicial review.	Exhaustion prerequisites acknowledged; addressed via amended complaint.

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (indigent status must be demonstrated to justify IFP)
Johnson v. Sullivan, 922 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1990) (exhaustion prerequisite for Social Security suit)
Brewster v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1972) (IFP privilege reserved for truly impoverished litigants)