2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Andre Pierre Harris-El Bey, Case No. 2:26-cv-00407-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Clark County, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Andre Pierre Harris-El Bey has filed an application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, 13 Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information and Plaintiff appears to be providing evasive 14 answers. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and will give Plaintiff 15 another chance to apply to proceed in forma pauperis using the Court’s Long Form or to pay the 16 filing fee. 17 I. Discussion. 18 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 19 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 20 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 22 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 23 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 24 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 25 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 26 (1948). 27 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 1 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 2 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 3 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 4 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 5 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 6 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 7 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 9 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 10 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 11 in forma pauperis application). 12 Plaintiff leaves both question 1 and the first part of question 2 blank. So, it appears that 13 he is claiming to not be incarcerated and to be unemployed. But Plaintiff must indicate this on his 14 form in response to these questions, rather than leaving the Court to guess. 15 Plaintiff also claims to make no income from any source, to have no money in cash or a 16 checking or savings account, to have no items of any value, to have no expenses, and to have no 17 debts or financial obligations. Explaining his lack of expenses in response to question 6, Plaintiff 18 asserts that he is “a religious minister with no employment, no income and no regular monthly 19 expenses.” However, it is unclear from this statement whether Plaintiff’s needs are completely 20 taken care of by a religious organization or some other source. It is also unclear how Plaintiff 21 lives given his claim to have no money and no bills. Plaintiff’s explanation is insufficient. 22 The Court further notes that, in signing his name, Plaintiff writes “without prejudice, all 23 rights reserved, UCC 1-308.” This contravenes one of the fundamental purposes of Federal Rule 24 of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11(a) states that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper 25 must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally 26 if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 27 “One of the fundamental purposes of Rule 11 is to reduce frivolous claims, defenses, or 1 expense in litigation.” Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal 2 quotations omitted) (cleaned up). In sum, “Rule 11 is aimed at curbing abuses of the judicial 3 system.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communs. Enters., 498 U.S. 533, 542 (1991) (internal 4 quotations omitted). 5 The relevant portion of UCC § 1-308 states, 6 A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or 7 offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights 8 reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient. 9 10 UCC § 1-308(a). 11 While the intended meaning is unclear, the Court notes that including “UCC 1-308” is a 12 frequent and common tactic by those who adhere to the sovereign citizen movement. See Tiffany 13 v. Karen, No. 2:23-cv-00393-ART-DJA, 2023 WL 11827285 at *2 (D. Nev. May 25, 2023) 14 (“Plaintiff also appears to have included in the signature line a reference to ‘UCC 1-308’ which 15 appears to refer to some sort of reservation of rights. This is common in Moorish [sovereign 16 citizen] pleadings because they believe that by ‘reserving your rights’ you can avoid the potential 17 consequences of untruthful answers.”); see also Harper v. California Dep’t of Corr. & 18 Rehabilitations, 2022 WL 1094806, at *1 (E.D. Cal. March 29, 2022) (collecting cases) (finding 19 that inclusion of UCC 1-308 “has been used by persons who consider themselves to be ‘sovereign 20 citizens.’”). 21 Given Plaintiff’s dubious claims to have no income and no bills whatsoever, the Court 22 finds that Plaintiff intends to include UCC § 1-308 as a means to “avoid the potential 23 consequences of untruthful answers.” See McCarley v. AIRBNB, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-00510-JAD- 24 MDC, 2025 WL 1151131, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2025). Plaintiff cannot seek to absolve himself 25 from the consequences of untruthful or “frivolous” pleadings and/or filings. C.f. United States v. 26 Sykes, 614 F.3d 303, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 2010) (characterizing defendant’s claim that the UCC 27 relieved him of criminal liability as “bizarre”). The purpose of Rule 11 is undermined when 1 filers, such as Plaintiff, seek to “reserve their rights” and thereby avoid the penalty such 2 consequences. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c) (permitting sanctions for violations of the rule). 3 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 4 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. See Greco v. NYE County Dist. Jude 6 Robert Lane, No. 2:15-cv-01370-MMD-PAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016) 7 report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 2:15-cv-001370-MMD-PAL, 8 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Andre Pierre Harris-El Bey, Case No. 2:26-cv-00407-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Clark County, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Andre Pierre Harris-El Bey has filed an application to proceed in forma 12 pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, 13 Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information and Plaintiff appears to be providing evasive 14 answers. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and will give Plaintiff 15 another chance to apply to proceed in forma pauperis using the Court’s Long Form or to pay the 16 filing fee. 17 I. Discussion. 18 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 19 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 20 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 22 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 23 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 24 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 25 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 26 (1948). 27 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 1 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 2 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 3 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 4 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 5 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 6 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 7 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 9 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 10 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 11 in forma pauperis application). 12 Plaintiff leaves both question 1 and the first part of question 2 blank. So, it appears that 13 he is claiming to not be incarcerated and to be unemployed. But Plaintiff must indicate this on his 14 form in response to these questions, rather than leaving the Court to guess. 15 Plaintiff also claims to make no income from any source, to have no money in cash or a 16 checking or savings account, to have no items of any value, to have no expenses, and to have no 17 debts or financial obligations. Explaining his lack of expenses in response to question 6, Plaintiff 18 asserts that he is “a religious minister with no employment, no income and no regular monthly 19 expenses.” However, it is unclear from this statement whether Plaintiff’s needs are completely 20 taken care of by a religious organization or some other source. It is also unclear how Plaintiff 21 lives given his claim to have no money and no bills. Plaintiff’s explanation is insufficient. 22 The Court further notes that, in signing his name, Plaintiff writes “without prejudice, all 23 rights reserved, UCC 1-308.” This contravenes one of the fundamental purposes of Federal Rule 24 of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11(a) states that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper 25 must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally 26 if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 27 “One of the fundamental purposes of Rule 11 is to reduce frivolous claims, defenses, or 1 expense in litigation.” Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal 2 quotations omitted) (cleaned up). In sum, “Rule 11 is aimed at curbing abuses of the judicial 3 system.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communs. Enters., 498 U.S. 533, 542 (1991) (internal 4 quotations omitted). 5 The relevant portion of UCC § 1-308 states, 6 A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or 7 offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights 8 reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient. 9 10 UCC § 1-308(a). 11 While the intended meaning is unclear, the Court notes that including “UCC 1-308” is a 12 frequent and common tactic by those who adhere to the sovereign citizen movement. See Tiffany 13 v. Karen, No. 2:23-cv-00393-ART-DJA, 2023 WL 11827285 at *2 (D. Nev. May 25, 2023) 14 (“Plaintiff also appears to have included in the signature line a reference to ‘UCC 1-308’ which 15 appears to refer to some sort of reservation of rights. This is common in Moorish [sovereign 16 citizen] pleadings because they believe that by ‘reserving your rights’ you can avoid the potential 17 consequences of untruthful answers.”); see also Harper v. California Dep’t of Corr. & 18 Rehabilitations, 2022 WL 1094806, at *1 (E.D. Cal. March 29, 2022) (collecting cases) (finding 19 that inclusion of UCC 1-308 “has been used by persons who consider themselves to be ‘sovereign 20 citizens.’”). 21 Given Plaintiff’s dubious claims to have no income and no bills whatsoever, the Court 22 finds that Plaintiff intends to include UCC § 1-308 as a means to “avoid the potential 23 consequences of untruthful answers.” See McCarley v. AIRBNB, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-00510-JAD- 24 MDC, 2025 WL 1151131, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2025). Plaintiff cannot seek to absolve himself 25 from the consequences of untruthful or “frivolous” pleadings and/or filings. C.f. United States v. 26 Sykes, 614 F.3d 303, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 2010) (characterizing defendant’s claim that the UCC 27 relieved him of criminal liability as “bizarre”). The purpose of Rule 11 is undermined when 1 filers, such as Plaintiff, seek to “reserve their rights” and thereby avoid the penalty such 2 consequences. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c) (permitting sanctions for violations of the rule). 3 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 4 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. See Greco v. NYE County Dist. Jude 6 Robert Lane, No. 2:15-cv-01370-MMD-PAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016) 7 report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 2:15-cv-001370-MMD-PAL, 8 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016) (explaining that “when an applicant is specifically 9 ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct form must be submitted and the applicant must 10 provide all the information requested in the Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact 11 finding regarding the applicant’s financial status”) (emphasis in original). The Court further 12 orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question 13 without providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any 14 questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that he receives, state the amount 15 he received, and what he expects to receive in the future. 16 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 17 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 18 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 19 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until May 26, 2026, 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 Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 3 instructions.1 4 5 DATED: April 23, 2026, 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-