Demetrick Lee Tellis v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00823
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Demetrick Lee Tellis, Case No. 2:25-cv-00823-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et 9 al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pro se inmate Plaintiff Demetrick Lee Tellis filed an application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (which means to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 8). Although 14 Plaintiff’s application attaches a completed financial certificate and inmate account statement, 15 Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s 16 application without prejudice. The Court will require Plaintiff to file a renewed application or 17 pay the filing fee. If Plaintiff chooses to file a renewed application, he need not re-file a financial 18 certificate or inmate account statement because the Court already has those documents. 19 I. Discussion. 20 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 21 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 22 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 23 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 24 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 25 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 26 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 27 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 1 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 2 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 3 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 4 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 5 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 6 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 7 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 8 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 9 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 10 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 11 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 12 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 13 in forma pauperis application). 14 On his application, Plaintiff responds to question 1 by stating that he is not employed. 15 However, Plaintiff does not complete the question by explaining the date of his last employment 16 and the amount of the salary or wages per month which he received. In response to question 2, 17 Plaintiff responds that he has received money from a source other than those listed in the last 18 twelve months. However, Plaintiff does not describe the source of money or the amount received 19 as required by that question.1 Finally, Plaintiff leaves question 5 blank without explaining 20 whether or not it applies to him. 21 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 22 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 23 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 24 25

26 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff does not completely answer question 3, which asks him if he has 27 any money in an account. Plaintiff responds yes, and writes “prison account,” but does not list the amount in the account. However, Plaintiff has attached a copy of his inmate account 1 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 2 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. 3 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 4 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 5 questions and check all applicable boxes. If Plaintiff files an updated application, he need not 6 attach a new financial certificate or inmate account statement because the Court already has 7 copies of these documents. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court 8 denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 9 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until December 8, 2025, to file an 13 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. 14 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 15 this case be dismissed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 17 a copy of this order and of the application to proceed in forma pauperis by an inmate. 18 19 DATED: November 7, 2025 20 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27