Benitha Dorsal Butler v. Breit MF Flamingo West LLC dba FireSkye Apartments; et al.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Benitha Dorsal Butler, Case No. 2:26-cv-01721-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Breit MF Flamingo West LLC dba FireSkye 9 Apartments; et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Benitha Dorsal Butler filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (which means to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s 14 application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without 15 prejudice. 16 I. Discussion. 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 18 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 19 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 20 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 21 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 22 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 23 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 24 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 25 (1948). 26 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 27 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 1 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 2 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 3 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 4 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 5 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 6 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 8 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 9 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 10 in forma pauperis application). 11 Plaintiff leaves both question 1 and question 2 blank on the application. While the Court 12 can infer that Plaintiff is not incarcerated, Plaintiff must make that clear on the application. And 13 Plaintiff must make it clear whether she is employed or not. Plaintiff responds to question 3 by 14 stating that she receives $1,184.00 monthly from disability or worker’s compensation payments. 15 But she leaves the rest of the checkboxes blank, despite the fact that there are boxes available for 16 Plaintiff to check if she does not receive money from the listed sources. Plaintiff leaves question 17 5 blank without indicating whether it does not apply to her or not and if not, why not. Plaintiff 18 also leaves question 7 blank without explaining whether or not it applies to her. Finally, Plaintiff 19 includes an incomplete response to question 8. That question requires Plaintiff to list her debts or 20 financial obligations by describing the amounts owed and to whom they are payable. Plaintiff 21 does not indicate to whom her 2024 business loan is payable. 22 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 23 pauperis status. The Court will therefore give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in 24 forma pauperis application on this Court’s application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff 25 may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an 26 explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff 27 must describe each source of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what 1 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 2 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 3 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 4 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 5 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 7 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until July 15, 2026, to (1) file an 9 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee; 10 and (2) file a signed complaint. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a 11 recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 13 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 14 instructions.1 15 16 DATED: June 15, 2026, 17 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-