*1 Case 2:25-cv-01138-APG-NJK Document 4 Filed 06/27/25 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
WENDY WOLKENSTEIN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01138-APG-NJK Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. [Docket No. 1] DAN HEINRICH, et al.,
Defendant(s). Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1.
The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs, or security therefor, by a person who has shown an inability to pay such costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A determination of whether the plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a matter left to the discretion of the Court. See, e.g. , Flores v. Colvin , 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93236, at *2 (D. Nev. May 22, 2014), adopted , 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93234 (D. Nev. July 9, 2014). While an applicant need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, the applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay those costs while still providing for the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
Only Plaintiff Wendy Wolkenstein filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis . [1] The application identifies annual wages of $70,000, along with an additional $10,000 annual profit from rental property, see Docket No. 1 at 1, which greatly exceeds the federal poverty guidelines for a family of five, cf. Andrea L.M. v. O’Malley , 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2 (D. Nev. *2 Case 2:25-cv-01138-APG-NJK Document 4 Filed 06/27/25 Page 2 of 2 July 3, 2024). That monthly income is also well above the amounts that have led to denial of in forma pauperis status, see, e.g. , Brunson v. Soc. Sec. , 2019 WL 6709544, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2019) (denying in forma pauperis status based on monthly income of $1,397), adopted , 2019 WL 6700193 (D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2019), and the Court has rejected similar requests, see Andrea L.M. , 2024 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117157, at *2. Moreover, the application identifies only $1,800 in monthly expenses, which are amply covered by the income identified. See Docket No. 1 at 2. Lastly, the application identifies $1,000 in cash or bank accounts, along with $20,000 in stocks. Id. [2] In short, Plaintiff Wolkenstein is able to pay the filing fee.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the application to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and that Plaintiffs be required to pay the filing fee in prompt fashion within a specified timeframe.
Dated: June 27, 2025
______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
[1] When multiple plaintiffs join in the same suit, they must each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and each Plaintiff must qualify for in forma pauperis status. See, e.g. , Remmert v. Newsome , 2023 WL 1806277, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023). Given the ability to pay found herein, the Court need not order Plaintiff Knepp to file her own application. 1
[2] The application is incomplete given that Plaintiff Wolkenstein identifies a mortgage, but fails to identify owned real estate and the value thereof. See id. at 2. 2