Al-Farouk v. Nelson

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided September 5, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01244·Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Yasmeen Al-Farouk, Case No. 2:25-cv-01244-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Kristine Nelson, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Yasmeen Al-Farouk filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (meaning, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 3). However, the Court cannot 13 determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court thus denies 14 Plaintiff’s application with leave to re-file. 15 I. Discussion. 16 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 17 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 18 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 19 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 20 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 21 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 22 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 23 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 24 (1948). 25 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 26 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 27 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 1 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 2 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 3 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 4 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 5 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 6 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 7 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 8 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 9 in forma pauperis application). 10 Plaintiff’s application is largely complete with the exception of one issue. Plaintiff 11 responds to question 2 that Plaintiff is unemployed and retired. Plaintiff responds to question 3 12 that Plaintiff’s only income is Social Security Retirement totaling $1,256.00. However, Plaintiff 13 does not indicate how much Plaintiff expects to receive in the future. So, it is unclear to the Court 14 whether Plaintiff receives $1,256.00 per month, per another time frame, or if Plaintiff received 15 that much in the past but will not receive it in the future. Because Plaintiff has not completely 16 answered question 3, the Court will deny the application with leave for Plaintiff to re-file it. 17 Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, 18 it does not screen the complaint at this time. 19 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice and with leave to refile. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 6, 2025, to file an updated 23 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 24 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 25 be dismissed. 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 2 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 3 instructions.1 4 5 DATED: September 5, 2025 6 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-

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

Al-Farouk v. Nelson, (D. Nev. 2025).

Al-Farouk v. Nelson (Al-Farouk v. Nelson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
335 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Wilson v. Lear Corp.
2 F. App'x 576 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
Kennedy v. Huibregtse
831 F.3d 441 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)