Denise Ramirez v. U.S. Government

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Denise Ramirez, Case No. 2:25-cv-01548-ART-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 U.S. Government, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Denise Ramirez filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. 12 (ECF No. 6). However, Plaintiff’s application is still 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 is missing certain information. Plaintiff leaves the first part of 10 question 2 blank, which question asks if Plaintiff is employed and what her employer’s name and 11 address is. This is despite the Court’s prior order that Plaintiff may not leave any questions blank. 12 Plaintiff also writes in response to the second part of question 2 that she receives $1,000 in gross 13 wages per month. But Plaintiff does not identify her take home wages, leaving the question 14 blank. 15 Plaintiff leaves questions 5 and 8 blank in violation of the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff 16 also fails to completely respond to question 6, which asks her to list her monthly expenses. 17 Plaintiff writes that she pays $1,000 in rent. She does not list any other expenses, including food 18 or utilities, and does not provide any explanations regarding the lack of any other expenses. The 19 Court previously pointed out that this was not a complete response to the question, but Plaintiff 20 has not amended it. Plaintiff also does not provide a responsive answer to question 7, which asks 21 Plaintiff to list all persons dependent on her for support, her relationship with each person, and 22 how much she contributes to their support. Instead, Plaintiff writes, “I pay my mom 1,000 dollars 23 a month for rent for me and my daughter.” 24 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 25 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one more opportunity to file a complete in forma 26 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or 27 “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of 1 source of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive 2 in the future. 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. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 6 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 7 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 9 pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until March 27, 2026, to file an updated 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 12 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 13 be dismissed. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 15 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 16 instructions.1 17 18 DATED: February 25, 2026 19 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-