Opinion
2:22-cv-01983-JAD-NJK
11-30-2022
ASPARA ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[DOCKET NO. 1]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs application 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 that he is unable 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). In exercising that discretion, the Court evaluates the income and assets to which the plaintiff has access. See, e.g., id. at *3-4. While an applicant need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, he must demonstrate that he cannot pay those costs while still providing himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
In this case. Plaintiffs application indicates she has a gross wage of 1.2 million dollars and a take-home pay of one million dollars per month. Docket No. 1 at 1. Such a monthly wage is more than sufficient to allow Plaintiff to pre-pay this case's filing fee while still providing herself with the necessities of life.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and that Plaintiff be requir ed to pay the filing fee if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case.
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).