Benjamin G. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-03961
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Benjamin G. v. Bisignano, Judge Foster denied Benjamin G.'s request to waive the court filing fee because his family income was too high.
Individuals seeking to sue in federal court without paying filing fees, particularly Social Security claimants with moderate-to-higher household incomes who may believe their own financial situation justifies a fee waiver.
What happened
In Benjamin G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, a plaintiff named Benjamin G. sued the Commissioner of Social Security and asked the court for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee — a status sometimes called 'in forma pauperis,' meaning the court waives fees for people who cannot afford them.
The court examined Benjamin G.'s financial situation and found that his family income exceeded $100,000 in the year before he filed the lawsuit, that he expected similar income going forward, and that he reported having enough cash on hand to cover the filing fee. The court noted this income is nearly 400 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three in Minnesota.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the fee-waiver request, finding that paying the $405.00 filing fee would not cause undue financial hardship given Benjamin G.'s income and assets. The court ordered Benjamin G. to pay the $405.00 filing fee by November 6, 2025, and warned that if he does not pay, the case may be dismissed for failure to move it forward.
The detailed version
- Benjamin G. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03961
- Dulce J. Foster
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Benjamin G. filed a lawsuit against Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security, in the District of Minnesota. Along with his complaint, he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a legal mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 that allows litigants who cannot afford court fees to have those fees waived so they can access the courts without undue financial hardship.
Legal Standard for IFP
The court applied the standard that the central question in evaluating an IFP application is whether the applicant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life, citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948). The court also recognized that when assessing financial ability, it may consider not just the applicant's own resources but also resources available from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with necessities of life, such as a spouse, parent, or adult sibling.
Application of the Standard
The court reviewed Benjamin G.'s IFP application and found the following key financial facts: - His familial income exceeded $100,000 in the year preceding the filing of the lawsuit. - He anticipated earning a similar amount going forward. - This income level represents nearly 400 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three in Minnesota. - He reported having sufficient cash on hand to cover the filing fee.
Based on these facts, the court concluded that paying the $405.00 filing fee, while not a negligible expense, would not constitute an undue hardship.
Ruling
Judge 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. The court warned that if the fee is not paid by that deadline, the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows courts to dismiss actions when a plaintiff fails to comply with court orders or to move the case forward. The court's order uses the word 'may' regarding dismissal, and does not specify whether any such dismissal would be with or without prejudice, though the earlier text of the opinion references the possibility of dismissal 'without prejudice.'
Key Takeaway
This order addresses only the procedural question of whether Benjamin G. qualifies for a fee waiver. The court has not yet addressed the merits of his underlying Social Security claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.