Ahmed v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

W.D. Washington

Ahmed v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

DecidedMay 22, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00952

StatusUnknown

This text of Ahmed v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Ahmed v. Federal Bureau of Investigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmed v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 MOHAMED AHMED, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-952-TL 10 v. ORDER 11 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 15 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff states he receives $747.00 per 16 month. (Id. at 1.) He reports having no valuable property and no dependents. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 17 left blank the portions of the application requesting information about his cash on hand, funds in 18 checking or savings accounts, and his monthly expenses. (See id.) 19 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 20 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 21 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 22 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 23 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 1 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 2 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” 3 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations 4 omitted).

5 Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine 6 whether he is able to afford court fees. Plaintiff failed to specify his expenses for basic 7 necessities such as food and housing and whether these expenses are covered by the money he 8 receives. Furthermore, it is unclear if he has savings that could be used to pay court fees. Without 9 further information, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by June 6, 2025, why the Court 11 should not recommend his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an 12 amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above by that date. The Clerk is directed to 13 renote Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for June 6, 2025, and to send copies of this order to 14 Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable Tana Lin.

15 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2025. 16 A 17 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 MOHAMED AHMED, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-952-TL 10 v. ORDER 11 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 15 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff states he receives $747.00 per 16 month. (Id. at 1.) He reports having no valuable property and no dependents. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 17 left blank the portions of the application requesting information about his cash on hand, funds in 18 checking or savings accounts, and his monthly expenses. (See id.) 19 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 20 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 21 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 22 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 23 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 1 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 2 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” 3 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations 4 omitted).

5 Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine 6 whether he is able to afford court fees. Plaintiff failed to specify his expenses for basic 7 necessities such as food and housing and whether these expenses are covered by the money he 8 receives. Furthermore, it is unclear if he has savings that could be used to pay court fees. Without 9 further information, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by June 6, 2025, why the Court 11 should not recommend his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an 12 amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above by that date. The Clerk is directed to 13 renote Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for June 6, 2025, and to send copies of this order to 14 Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable Tana Lin.

15 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2025. 16 A 17 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ahmed v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack