Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01308-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENTON LIPSCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 6)

14-DAY DEADLINE

Background

Plaintiff Brenton Lipscomb (“Plaintiff”) initiated four actions with the filing of four 

separate complaints and associated applications to proceed in forma pauperis on October 25, 

2024. (Docs. 1, 2). See Case Numbers: 1:24-cv-01305-JLT-CDB (“Action 1305”), 1:24-cv01306-CDB (“Action 1306”), 1:24-cv-01307-CDB (“Action 1307”), and 1:24-cv-01308-JLTCDB (“Action 1308”) (collectively, “Actions 1305-1308”). Plaintiff’s complaints in these 

actions allege substantially similar facts and nearly identical causes of action against related 

defendants. See (Doc. 1).

On October 30, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why (1) all four actions 

should not be consolidated, and in the alternative, (2) why three of the actions (Action 1305, 

Action 1306, and Action 1307) should not be dismissed, with Action 1308 remaining as the 

Case 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 11/27/24 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

operative case. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff filed a substantially identical response to the Court’s order in 

all four actions, in which he requests consolidation and appears to acknowledge the cases are all 

related to each other. (Doc. 5 at 2-3).

On November 26, 2024, the undersigned entered Findings and Recommendation to dismiss

Action 1305, Action 1306, and Action 1307 as duplicative of the instant action, and allow Action 

1308 to proceed as the action encompassing the broadest set of allegations applicable to all 

defendants and claims. (Doc. 7) Actions 1305-1307.

Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in any of the named actions and, instead, applied to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2) Actions 1305-1308. On 

October 30, 2024, because Plaintiff’s applications demonstrated that his income and resources 

could be above the poverty threshold and the information provided was insufficient for the Court 

to determine whether he is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a long-form application. (Doc. 4) Actions 1305-1308. On November 20, 

2024, Plaintiff filed identical long-form in forma pauperis applications in the named actions. 

(Doc. 6) Actions 1305-1308.

To proceed in court without prepayment of the filing fee, a plaintiff must submit an 

affidavit demonstrating that he “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege and 

not a right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 

198 n.2 (1993); see Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“permission to 

proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis

does not violate the applicant’s right to due process”), abrogated on other grounds, Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). A plaintiff need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma 

pauperis and the application is sufficient if it states that due to poverty, the applicant is unable to 

pay the costs and still be able to provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life. 

Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Whether to grant or deny 

an application to proceed without prepayment of fees is an exercise of the district court’s 

Case 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 11/27/24 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

discretion. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015).

Plaintiff states in the applications that his total monthly income is $266.00 solely from 

unemployment benefits. Id. at 1-2. In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty 

threshold under § 1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year 

by the Department of Health and Human Services. E.g., Elmer v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-

cv-01045-AWI-SAB, 2022 WL 5237463, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2022) (citing Lint v. City of 

Boise, No. CV09-72-S-ELJ, 2009 WL 114942, at *2 (D. Idaho. Apr. 28, 2009) (collecting 

cases)), F&R adopted, 2022 WL 9452375 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022). Plaintiff does not claim a 

spouse or any dependents. (Doc. 6 p. 3), Actions 1305-1308. The 2024 Poverty Guidelines for 

the 48 contiguous states for a household of one is $15,060. 2024 Poverty Guidelines, 

https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines (last visited 

November 27, 2024). Therefore, Plaintiff’s reported income lies below the poverty threshold.

Plaintiff also claims monthly expenses of approximately $4,421.50, which starkly exceeds 

his reported income. (Doc. 6 p. 4) Actions 1305-1308. Plaintiff claims the following itemized 

monthly expenses: $2500.00 rent or home-mortgage payment; $300.00 utilities; $400.00 food; 

$25.00 laundry and dry-cleaning; $100.00 medical or dental expenses; $150.00 transportation; 

$12.50 homeowner’s or renter’s insurance; $35.00 life insurance; $764.00 motor vehicle 

installment payments; and $135.00 credit card (“Sears”) installment payments. Id. at 4.

Plaintiff reports that he was last employed by “EAFB” from April 2022 to June 2023 with 

a gross monthly pay of $8,833.33. Id. at 2. Plaintiff does not expect any major changes to his 

monthly income or expenses or in his assets or liabilities during the next 12 months. Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff explains that he has “been unemployed since termination with no luck of landing a job.” 

Id. Notably, Plaintiff states that he has $0.00 in bank account or in any other financial institution. 

Id. at 2.

Plaintiff’s applications demonstrate that he is able to afford $4,421.50 in monthly expenses 

despite receiving only $288.00 monthly from unemployment benefits and purportedly having no 

money in any bank accounts or in any other financial institution. Therefore, Plaintiff’s reported 

household income and pleadings do not suggest that Plaintiff is living in poverty.

Case 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 11/27/24 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to make a supplemental filing within 14 days of entry 

of this order explaining the discrepancies noted above in his initial and long-form applications to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action 

in full.

Any failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01308-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 11/27/24 Page 4 of 4