Benshoof v. Admon

W.D. Washington

Benshoof v. Admon

DecidedSeptember 8, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01392

StatusUnknown

This text of Benshoof v. Admon (Benshoof v. Admon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benshoof v. Admon, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KURT A. BENSHOOF, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-1392 JNW 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 MOSHE ADMON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 15 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff indicates he is not employed 16 and has received no money from any source for the past twelve months. (Id. at 1.) However, 17 Plaintiff lists monthly expenses totaling $1,005 and states he has $2,168 in cash and $185.07 in 18 checking and savings accounts. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also states he owns a vehicle worth $25,000. 19 (Id.) Asked to provide any other information explaining why he cannot pay court fees and costs, 20 Plaintiff states he is “living under threat of immediate unlawful arrest, effectively imprisoned in 21 [his] own home, due to the ongoing criminal conspiracy of civil rights violations perpetrated.” 22 (Id.) 23 1 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 2 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 3 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 4 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523

5 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 6 must show that he or she “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and 7 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 8 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations omitted). 9 The inconsistency in Plaintiff’s application renders the Court unable to determine his 10 ability to pay. Plaintiff does not, for example, inform the Court how he pays for his monthly 11 expenses or how he has acquired thousands of dollars in cash. Plaintiff should not, under these 12 circumstances, be authorized to proceed IFP. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by September 15, 2023, why the 14 Court should not recommend his IFP application be denied. The Clerk is directed to send copies

15 of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Jamal N. Whitehead. 16 Dated this 8th day of September, 2023. 17 A 18 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KURT A. BENSHOOF, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-1392 JNW 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 MOSHE ADMON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 15 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff indicates he is not employed 16 and has received no money from any source for the past twelve months. (Id. at 1.) However, 17 Plaintiff lists monthly expenses totaling $1,005 and states he has $2,168 in cash and $185.07 in 18 checking and savings accounts. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also states he owns a vehicle worth $25,000. 19 (Id.) Asked to provide any other information explaining why he cannot pay court fees and costs, 20 Plaintiff states he is “living under threat of immediate unlawful arrest, effectively imprisoned in 21 [his] own home, due to the ongoing criminal conspiracy of civil rights violations perpetrated.” 22 (Id.) 23 1 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 2 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 3 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 4 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523

5 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 6 must show that he or she “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and 7 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 8 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations omitted). 9 The inconsistency in Plaintiff’s application renders the Court unable to determine his 10 ability to pay. Plaintiff does not, for example, inform the Court how he pays for his monthly 11 expenses or how he has acquired thousands of dollars in cash. Plaintiff should not, under these 12 circumstances, be authorized to proceed IFP. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by September 15, 2023, why the 14 Court should not recommend his IFP application be denied. The Clerk is directed to send copies

15 of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Jamal N. Whitehead. 16 Dated this 8th day of September, 2023. 17 A 18 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Benshoof v. Admon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benshoof-v-admon-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack