1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRIELIN SESSIONS, No. 2:25-cv-2936-DAD-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND

15 SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Perrielin Sessions proceeding without counsel brings claims against Solano 19 County Health and Social Services and various individual defendants related to the removal of 20 plaintiff’s minor child from her custody in 2022 and subsequent events. (ECF No. 1.) This matter 21 is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s renewed application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is before the court. (ECF No. 4.) 23 To commence a civil action, a plaintiff must ordinarily pay the court costs which currently 24 consist of a $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee. The court may authorize 25 commencement of a civil action “without prepayment of fees” by an individual who submits an 26 affidavit evidencing an inability to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of 27 an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 28 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebee’s, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) 1 (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)); see also 2 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (affidavit must “state the facts as to 3 affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” (internal quotation omitted)). 4 Plaintiff’s affidavit does not demonstrate she was unable to pay court costs and still afford 5 the necessities of life when she filed this suit. The court recognizes plaintiff reported not having 6 any money in cash or in a checking or savings account and general expenses that utilize all of her 7 income. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) However, the court also considers the amount of plaintiff’s gross and 8 take-home pay. Plaintiff reports receiving $1,651.48 in gross pay and $1,355.45 in take-home pay 9 bi-weekly. (Id. at 1.) 10 Courts may look to the federal poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of 11 Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a guidepost in evaluating in forma pauperis applications. 12 E.g., Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004). The HHS 13 poverty guideline for a one-person household in 2025 is $15,650 and for a two-person household 14 in 2025 is $21,150. See https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty- 15 guidelines. Plaintiff’s gross employment income totals $42,938.48, which is more than two and a 16 half times the poverty guideline level for a one-person household and more than two times the 17 poverty guideline for a two-person household.1 Considering plaintiff’s employment income, the 18 information in the IFP application is inconsistent with a finding of poverty. See, e.g., Moreno on 19 behalf of A.J.M. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-CV-01540-BAM, 2025 WL 394666, at *1 20 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. A.J.M. by & through 21 Moreno v. Comissioner of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-CV-01540 JLT BAM, 2025 WL 472710 (E.D. 22 Cal. Feb. 12, 2025) (IFP denied where employment income was more than double the applicable 23 poverty guideline); Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-CV-01049-SAB, 2019 WL 24 11234222, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV- 25 01049-DAD-SAB, 2019 WL 11234224 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019) (IFP denied where household 26 income was approximately double the poverty guideline level for a family of two). 27

28 1 Plaintiff reports no current expenses for persons dependent on her for support. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) ] Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied. However, because 2 | plaintiff reported having no money in cash or in a checking or savings account, it would be 3 || appropriate for the court to allow plaintiff to commence this case with an initial payment of 4 | $50.00 and subsequent monthly installments. 5 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 6 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) be denied; 7 2. Plaintiff be granted leave to satisfy the $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative 8 fee in monthly installments of $50.00 or more, with the first payment due within 14 9 days of the district court’s decision on these findings and recommendations and on the 10 first of each month thereafter; 11 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to issue summonses after the first installment is 12 received; and 13 4. Plaintiff be warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment 14 schedule may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections period is 17 || required for IFP denials, see Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), but 18 | plaintiff may file written objections to these findings and recommendations within 14 days. Such 19 || a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 || Recommendations.” 21 | Dated: December 16, 2025 / ae / 4 [iy ai

23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 |g sess25ev2936.ifp.tt 27 28