Akins v. Wilson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 10, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Louiscreas Akins, Case No. 2:23-cv-01039-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Thomas Wilson; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Louiscreas Akins filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 12 No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies 13 Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 14 I. Discussion. 15 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 16 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 17 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 18 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 19 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 20 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 21 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 22 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 23 (1948). 24 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 25 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 26 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 27 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 1 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 2 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 3 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 4 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 5 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 6 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 7 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 8 in forma pauperis application). 9 Plaintiff’s application contains unclear and contradictory information. In response to 10 question 1, Plaintiff lists that she has received no money from any source for the past twelve 11 months. She leaves the portion for her spouse’s income blank. Plaintiff also leaves the section 12 regarding income expected next month blank. However, in response to questions 2 and 3, 13 Plaintiff lists her employer as Alarmco and her spouse’s employer as Brosman and indicates that 14 until May 15, 2023 she made $3,600 monthly and her spouse currently makes $2,000 monthly. 15 Plaintiff then represents in response to question 4 that her and her spouse have no cash and she 16 leaves the section regarding money in financial institutions blank. 17 Plaintiff also leaves questions 6 and 7 blank. Question 7 asks Plaintiff to state the persons 18 who rely on her and her spouse for support. But the Court notes that, included in Plaintiff’s 19 initiating documents is a letter signed by her that states that she is “the sole provider of [her] 20 home, and [she] ha[s] 6 kids to provide for.” (ECF No. 1-6 at 7).1 21 Finally, in response to question 8, Plaintiff provides that she spends $2,000 per month on 22 clothing. However, Plaintiff provides no response to question 11 to explain why she cannot pay 23 the costs of this proceeding. Plaintiff also provides no explanation regarding how she pays her 24 25

26 1 Plaintiff has also attached a second application, which appears to be for her spouse, which 27 includes the same deficiencies as Plaintiff’s application. (ECF No. 1-1). However, because the Court’s Long Form application already includes space for Plaintiff to include her spouse’s 1 expenses, which—including her clothing expenses—far exceed her and her spouse’s combined 2 income. 3 Given these contradictions, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in 4 forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 5 pauperis application on this Court’s Long Form application. The Court further orders that 6 Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without 7 providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions 8 blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that she receives, state the amount she 9 received, and what she expects to receive in the future. 10 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 11 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 12 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 13 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until September 11, 2023 to file an 17 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. 18 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 19 this case be dismissed. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail Plaintiff 21 a copy of this order and of the Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 22 instructions.2 23 DATED: August 10, 2023 24 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 2 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-