Denise Ramirez v. U.S. Government

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Denise Ramirez, Case No. 2:25-cv-01548-ART-DJA Plaintiff, Order v. U.S. Government, Defendant. Pro se Plaintiff Denise Ramirez filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6). However, Plaintiff’s application is still missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. I. Discussion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma pauperis application). Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. Plaintiff leaves the first part of question 2 blank, which question asks if Plaintiff is employed and what her employer’s name and address is. This is despite the Court’s prior order that Plaintiff may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff also writes in response to the second part of question 2 that she receives $1,000 in gross wages per month. But Plaintiff does not identify her take home wages, leaving the question blank. Plaintiff leaves questions 5 and 8 blank in violation of the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff also fails to completely respond to question 6, which asks her to list her monthly expenses. Plaintiff writes that she pays $1,000 in rent. She does not list any other expenses, including food or utilities, and does not provide any explanations regarding the lack of any other expenses. The Court previously pointed out that this was not a complete response to the question, but Plaintiff has not amended it. Plaintiff also does not provide a responsive answer to question 7, which asks Plaintiff to list all persons dependent on her for support, her relationship with each person, and how much she contributes to their support. Instead, Plaintiff writes, “I pay my mom 1,000 dollars a month for rent for me and my daughter.” Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one more opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of source of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the future. The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until March 27, 2026, to file an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its instructions.1 DATED: February 25, 2026 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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