Clay v. AFNI, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01191
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Aaniyah Clay, Case No. 2:25-cv-01191-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Afni, Inc., 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Aaniyah Clay filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, 12 to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, the Court cannot determine 13 whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s 14 application with leave to re-file. 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 Plaintiff’s application is largely complete with the exception of two issues. First, the 11 Court cannot determine her monthly income from her response to question 2. Plaintiff provides 12 that her gross pay or wages are $400.00 and her take home pay or wages are $300.00 and that she 13 is paid “biweekly.” Unfortunately, biweekly can mean occurring twice in one week or occurring 14 once every two weeks. See On ‘Biweekly’ and ‘Bimonthly’, Merriam-Webster, 15 https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/on-biweekly-and-bimonthly (last visited Sept. 5, 16 2025). So, it is not entirely clear whether Plaintiff means that she takes home $300.00 twice per 17 week (totaling $2,400.00 in take home pay per month) or $300.00 twice per month (totaling 18 $600.00 in take home pay per month). 19 Second, Plaintiff asserts that question 5—which asks her to list any automobile or other 20 item of value she owns—does not apply to her. But in response to question six, Plaintiff asserts 21 that she makes a monthly car payment. So, it would appear that she does own an automobile but 22 did not list it in response to question 5. 23 Because the Court cannot determine which pay frequency Plaintiff means, and because 24 Plaintiff appears to have omitted her automobile from question 5, the Court will deny her 25 application with leave for her to re-file it. In any re-filed application, Plaintiff must clarify 26 whether she is paid twice per week or twice per month. Plaintiff may also not respond with an 27 “N/A” to any question without providing an explanation and must explain whether she owns an 1 automobile. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court denies 2 Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice and with leave to refile. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 6, 2025, to file an updated 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 8 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 9 be dismissed. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 11 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 12 instructions.1 13 14 DATED: September 5, 2025 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-