Brown v. Board of County Commisioner

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00159
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Lawrence T. Brown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00159-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Board of County Commissioner, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Lawrence T. Brown filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 12 (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus 13 denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 14 I. Discussion. 15 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 16 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 17 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 18 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 19 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 20 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 21 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 22 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 23 (1948). 24 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 25 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 26 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 27 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 1 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 2 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 3 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 4 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 5 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 6 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 7 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 8 in forma pauperis application). 9 Plaintiff’s application contains unclear and contradictory information. In answering 10 question 1, Plaintiff claims to have made $0 from employment, self-employment, income from 11 real property, interest and dividends, gifts, alimony, or child support in the past twelve months 12 and expects to make $0 in these categories in the next month. He does not include anything in the 13 spaces indicating how much his spouse makes in these categories. However, also in response to 14 question 1, Plaintiff does not fill out the boxes indicating how much he receives in retirement, 15 disability, unemployment payments, public assistance, or other sources, but fills out that his 16 spouse expects to make $0 in these categories next month. He does not indicate how much his 17 spouse has received in these categories in the past twelve months. 18 In response to question 2, Plaintiff claims to make $0 in gross monthly pay. But he does 19 not fill out the rest of the question, requesting his employment history for the past two years, and 20 his employers’ names, addresses, and his dates of employment. In response to question 3, 21 Plaintiff claims that his spouse makes $0 in gross monthly pay, but does not fill out the rest of the 22 question, requesting his spouse’s employment history for the past two years, and their employers’ 23 names, addresses, and their dates of employment. Plaintiff leaves question 4, asking how much 24 he and his spouse have in cash, blank. He partially fills out the rest of the question by indicating 25 that his spouse has $0 in bank accounts or financial institutions, but does not answer the rest of 26 the question, asking for the name of each institution, the type, or the amount that he has in those 27 accounts or financial institutions. 1 In response to question 5, Plaintiff claims to have no assets. And in response to 8, 2 Plaintiff claims to have $0 in bills, and responds “SNAP” to the category asking how much he 3 pays in food each month. He responds “N/A” to the questions asking about the amount his 4 spouse pays in bills each month. In response to question 11, Plaintiff provides that he is homeless 5 and relies on SNAP benefits. However, on the docket, Plaintiff includes an address. Public 6 records indicate that the address is a house. But Plaintiff provides no explanation about why he 7 lists this house as his address or how he lives there—if he indeed does—given his assertion to 8 have no money and no bills. 9 Given these contradictions, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in 10 forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 11 pauperis application on this Court’s Long Form application. The Court further orders that 12 Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without 13 providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions 14 blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that he receives, state the amount he 15 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 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 20 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until April 21, 2025, to file an updated 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 25 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 26 be dismissed. 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: March 21, 2025 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-