UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23718-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

TYLER ANGENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Kilolo Kijakazi,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Tyler Angene’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for 

Leave to Proceed in this action in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3] (the “IFP Motion”), filed on 

November 14, 2022. The Court has carefully considered the IFP Motion, the record in this case, 

and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is granted.

Section 1915 requires a determination as to whether “the statements in the [applicant’s] 

affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976); 

see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). An applicant’s “affidavit will be held sufficient if it represents that the 

litigant, because of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and 

provide necessities for himself and his dependents.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d

1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 

(1948) (IFP status need not be granted where one can pay or give security for the costs “and still 

be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”). The Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines are central to an assessment of an applicant’s 

poverty. See Taylor v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 261 F. App’x 399, 401 (3d Cir. 2008) (using 

Case 1:22-cv-23718-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-3718-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

HHS Guidelines as basis for section 1915 determination); Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 378 F. App’x 780, 

784 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming use of HHS guidelines). The section 1915 analysis requires 

“comparing the applicant’s assets and liabilities in order to determine whether he has satisfied the 

poverty requirement.” Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th 

Cir. 2014). Permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the

court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas, 574 F. App’x at 916

(“A district court has wide discretion in ruling on an application for leave to proceed IFP.”).

Plaintiff’s IFP Motion represents that his only asset is a scooter, which new would have a 

value of $1,399.98, he has no income from employment, he receives $252.00 monthly in food 

stamps, and is otherwise supported entirely by his mother. ECF No. [3] at 2. As such, Plaintiff’s 

income does not exceed the poverty guideline. See 87 Fed. Reg. 3315 (Jan. 21, 2022) (setting 

$13,590.00 as the relevant poverty guideline). Furthermore, the IFP Motion reflects no guaranteed 

monthly income going forward.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fee as 

required for indigent status under section 1915. Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

that Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, ECF No. [3] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall issue the 

summons attached to the Complaint for service by the United States Marshal Service. See ECF 

No. [1-2].

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 14, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23718-BB Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 2