Benjamin G. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-03961
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Benjamin G. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Foster denied Benjamin G.'s request to proceed without paying court fees because his family income exceeded $100,000.
People who file Social Security appeals in federal court and seek permission to proceed without paying filing fees, particularly those with moderate-to-higher household incomes, may be affected by this type of ruling. It shows that courts can consider total family income — not just individual income — when deciding whether someone qualifies for fee-waiver status.
What happened
In Benjamin G. v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-cv-3961), plaintiff Benjamin G. filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of Social Security and asked the court for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee — a status sometimes called proceeding without fees — because he claimed he could not afford it.
The court reviewed Benjamin G.'s financial application and found that his family income exceeded $100,000 in the year before he filed the case, which amounts to 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 to cover the filing fee, and concluded that paying it would not cause him undue financial hardship.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Benjamin G.'s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and ordered him to pay the $405.00 filing fee by November 6, 2025. The court warned that if he does not pay by that deadline, the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute it.
The detailed version
- Benjamin G. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03961
- Dulce J. Foster
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Benjamin G. filed suit against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, in the District of Minnesota. Along with his complaint, Benjamin G. filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a legal status that allows a litigant to file a case without paying court filing fees if they cannot afford them without undue hardship.
The IFP Standard
The court applied the standard that the central question in assessing an IFP application is whether the applicant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life. The court also noted that it may consider resources available to the applicant from family members or others who ordinarily provide the necessities of life, citing Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), and Williams v. Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1978).
The Court's Findings
The court found the following based on Benjamin G.'s own IFP application:
- His familial income exceeded $100,000 in the year preceding the filing of the action, and he anticipated earning a similar amount going forward. - That income amounts to nearly 400 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three living in Minnesota. - He reported having sufficient cash on hand from which the $405.00 filing fee could be paid.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that paying the filing fee, while not a negligible expense, would not constitute an undue hardship.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Benjamin G.'s IFP application (ECF No. 2). The court ordered Benjamin G. to pay the $405.00 filing fee by November 6, 2025, and warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court's order does not specify whether any such dismissal would be with or without prejudice, though the earlier portion of the opinion noted the case "may be dismissed without prejudice" for failure to prosecute.
Notes on Scope
This order addresses only the IFP application. The court did not reach the merits of Benjamin G.'s underlying Social Security claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.