Najafianashrafi v. Garland, 1:24-cv-00336

Plaintiff Zabihollah Najafianashrafi, proceeding pro se, seeks judicial review of the adjudication of his application for adjustment of immigration status (Form I-485).
Plaintiff filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 21, 2024.
On the same date, Plaintiff submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning he requested to proceed without prepaying court fees due to alleged financial incapacity.
Plaintiff’s IFP application disclosed monthly employment income of $3,433.22 (annual $41,198.64), with no dependents.
The federal poverty guideline for a household of one in 2024 is $15,060.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the application and made recommendations for disposition, including a directive to randomly reassign the case to a District Judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for IFP status	Najafianashrafi claims insufficient funds to pay the court filing fee.	Defendants did not brief; standard is statutory.	Plaintiff's income exceeds the qualifying threshold; IFP denied.
Ability to pay filing fee	Najafianashrafi asserts financial hardship.	Not contested.	Plaintiff is able to pay the fee.
Application of poverty guideline	Plaintiff’s income should be considered with expenses.	Not contested.	Income more than double poverty guideline; fee required.
Next procedural step	Seeks to proceed IFP.	Not at issue.	Plaintiff must pay $405 fee to proceed.

Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) (describes courts' use of federal poverty guidelines in evaluating IFP applications)
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to object to magistrate judge's report may waive appeal)
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (waiver of rights on appeal for non-objection to R&R)