Betty Faana Faasamala v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Betty Faana Faasamala, Case No. 2:26-cv-01408-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Betty Faana Faasamala 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. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s 14 application without prejudice. 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 On her application, in response to question 3, Plaintiff clams to receive income from a 11 pension, annuity, or life insurance payments. But Plaintiff does not complete the rest of the 12 question, asking her to describe each source of money and state the amount received and what she 13 expects to receive in the future. In response to question 5, Plaintiff lists a vehicle. But she does 14 not describe its approximate value as required by that question. In response to question 6, 15 Plaintiff indicates that she is homeless and living with family. But that question asks Plaintiff to 16 list any regular monthly expenses. While the Court appreciates Plaintiff providing additional 17 explanation, Plaintiff must respond to the question by indicating whether she has any monthly 18 bills or if she does not pay monthly bills given her living situation. 19 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 20 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 21 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 22 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 23 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 24 of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the 25 future. 26 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 27 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 2 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until June 10, 2026, to file an updated 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 5 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 6 be dismissed. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 8 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 9 instructions.1 10 11 DATED: May 11, 2026, 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-