Benjamin G. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-03961
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Benjamin G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Foster denied the plaintiff's request to proceed without paying court fees, finding that his household income of over $100,000 — nearly four times the federal poverty level — meant he could afford the $405.00 filing fee without undue hardship.
Individuals who apply to file lawsuits in federal court without paying filing fees (proceeding without prepayment of fees), particularly those with household incomes significantly above the federal poverty level, as the court may deny such applications even if the filing fee is not a small expense.
What happened
In Benjamin G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-cv-3961), plaintiff Benjamin G. sued the Commissioner of Social Security and asked the court for permission to file his case without paying the filing fee — a status sometimes called proceeding 'without prepayment of fees' — on the grounds that he could not afford it.
The court reviewed Benjamin G.'s financial application and found that his household income exceeded $100,000 in the year before he filed the lawsuit, and that he expected to earn a similar amount going forward. That income is nearly 400 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three in Minnesota. The court also noted that Benjamin G. reported having enough cash on hand from which the filing fee could be paid.
Based on those financial facts, Magistrate Judge Foster concluded that paying the $405.00 filing fee would not cause Benjamin G. undue financial hardship and denied the request to proceed without paying. Benjamin G. must pay the $405.00 filing fee by November 6, 2025. If he does not pay by that deadline, the case may be dismissed without prejudice — meaning it could potentially be refiled — for failure to move the case forward.
The detailed version
In Benjamin G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 25-cv-3961 (DJF) (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2025), United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied plaintiff Benjamin G.'s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a procedural mechanism allowing a litigant to file a lawsuit without prepaying court fees if they cannot afford to do so without undue hardship.
The governing legal standard for IFP applications asks whether the applicant can afford the costs of proceeding 'without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.' The court cited Ayers v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 70 F.3d 1268 (5th Cir. 1995), and the foundational Supreme Court decision in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948). The court also noted that in assessing an IFP application, it may consider not only the applicant's own resources but also resources available from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with necessities — such as a spouse, parent, or sibling — citing Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Benjamin G.'s IFP application (ECF No. 2) disclosed that his familial income exceeded $100,000 in the preceding year and that he anticipated earning a similar amount going forward. The court calculated that this income represents nearly 400 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three in Minnesota. Additionally, the application reflected that Benjamin G. had sufficient cash on hand from which the $405.00 filing fee could be paid.
On those facts, Judge Foster found that paying the filing fee — while not trivial — would not constitute an undue hardship. The IFP application was denied. The court ordered Benjamin G. to pay the $405.00 filing fee by November 6, 2025. Failure to pay by that date may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice (meaning the plaintiff would not be permanently barred from refiling) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.