1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT STANFIELD, No. 2:25–cv–01410–SCR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This is an action involving the review of a Social Security disability proceeding and is 19 referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15). 20 Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a 22 person that is unable to pay such fees). ECF No. 2. 23 The motion does not show that Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis 24 (“IFP”). “[O]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP statute. Escobedo 25 v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must 26 allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal citation and 27 quotation omitted). The current application contains several omissions. The gross pay or wages 28 line is left blank, instead of stating zero, if that is the intended answer. ECF No. 2 at 1. When 1 | asked to list assets such as automobile, real estate, stocks, etc., Plaintiff merely lists “N/A.” Jd. at 2 || 2. Similarly, when asked to list monthly expenses, Plaintiff lists “N/A.” It is difficult to believe 3 | that Plaintiff no assets and no monthly expenses, if that is what “N/A” is intended to convey. 4 || In any event, considering Plaintiffs monthly income from pension benefits, he would not qualify 5 || for IFP status if his expenses are zero. Plaintiff has also listed the income of his spouse, but not 6 || indicated how income and expenses are shared. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1236 (“Where a court 7 || wishes to rely on the income or assets of a litigant’s spouse to assess eligibility for IFP status, a 8 | reasonable inquiry into the actual availability of the spouse’s assets must be made.”). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff shall supplement the application to proceed IFP to address the deficiencies 11 described above within 14 days of the date of this Order. 12 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee. 13 3. If Plaintiff does not supplement the application or pay the filing fee within 14 days, 14 the Court will deny the IFP motion. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || DATED: May 21, 2025 " md 18 SEAN C. RIORDAN 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28