Duymayan v. Elite Medical Center, LLC

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Mert Duymayan, Case No. 2:25-cv-00223-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Elite Medical Center, LLC, 9 Defendant. 10 11 After the Court denied pro se Plaintiff Mert Duymayan’s incomplete application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, without paying the filing fee), Plaintiff filed a renewed 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6). However, Plaintiff’s application has the 14 same problems as his prior application and Plaintiff did not fix the issues the Court pointed out. 15 So, Court denies Plaintiff’s application and will give him one final chance to file a corrected one. 16 I. Discussion. 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 18 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 19 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 20 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 21 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 22 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 23 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 24 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 25 (1948). 26 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 27 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 1 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 2 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 3 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 4 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 5 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 6 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 8 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 9 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 10 in forma pauperis application). 11 Plaintiff’s application contains contradictory information because he claims to make no 12 money from employment or any other source, but asserts that he pays $1,450.00 total in monthly 13 expenses. While Plaintiff claims to have a car worth $5,000.00, stocks worth $1,200.00, and 14 $350.00 in a bank account, he does not claim to have sold his car or stocks or to have drained his 15 account to pay his bills. So, it is still not clear how Plaintiff pays his bills given his assertion to 16 make no money from any source. Given these contradictions, the Court cannot determine 17 whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one last 18 opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court further orders that 19 Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without 20 providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions 21 blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that he receives, state the amount he 22 received, and what he expects to receive in the future. 23 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 24 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 25 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 26 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 27 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 2 pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until July 30, 2025, to file an updated 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 5 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 6 be dismissed. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 8 a copy of this order and of the short form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 9 instructions.1 10 11 DATED: June 30, 2025 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-