Antonio McClain v. Kyndra Scott

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided April 9, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-02344·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, Case No. C25-2344-KKE v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant.

Plaintiff has filed an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 10.) In the IFP application, he reports he is unemployed, unmarried, and has no valuable property and no dependents. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff left blank the portions of the application asking about money received in the last twelve months, money on hand in cash or accounts, monthly expenses, and any other information to help explain why he cannot afford court fees and costs. (Id.) The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations

omitted). Plaintiff’s application omits information needed for the Court to determine his ability to pay court fees and costs. He provides no explanation of his monthly expenses or how he affords them. The lack of information prevents the Court from determining his eligibility to proceed IFP. Given these circumstances, Plaintiff should not be permitted to proceed IFP. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by April 29, 2026, why the Court should not recommend his IFP application be denied. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit an amended IFP application by that date, explaining his circumstances more fully. The Clerk is directed to renote Plaintiff’s amended IFP application (dkt. # 10) for April 29, 2026, and to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Kymberly K. Evanson.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2026. A United States Magistrate Judge

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

Antonio McClain v. Kyndra Scott, (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Antonio McClain v. Kyndra Scott (Antonio McClain v. Kyndra Scott) — 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)
Ogunsalu v. Nair
117 F. App'x 522 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)