Duymayan v. Valley Hospital Medical Center

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Mert Duymayan, 2:25-cv-00980-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiff,

5 vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 6 Valley Hospital Medical Center, PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2) 7 Defendants. 8 Pending before the Court is pro se plaintiff Mert Duymayan’s Application to Proceed In Forma 9 Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). The Court DENIES the IFP application without prejudice. Plaintiff must 10 either file a new Long Form IFP application OR pay the full filing $405 fee by October 6, 2025. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 13 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 14 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 15 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 16 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 17 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 18 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 19 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 20 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 21 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 22 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 23 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 25 1 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 2 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 3 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 4 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 5 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 6 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 7 pauperis application). 8 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 9 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 10 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 11 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, more 12 information is needed, or it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for 13 determining whether the applicant qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to 14 submit the Long Form, the correct form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the 15 information requested in the Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the 16 applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 17 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016), report and recommendation 18 adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 19 2016). 20 The Court finds that it cannot determine plaintiff’s IFP status at this time. Plaintiff filed a Short 21 Form IFP application (ECF No. 2); however, the Court notes that it contains deficiencies. Plaintiff 22 indicates that he has no wages or other income and only has $450 in his checking or savings account. 23 ECF No. 2 at 2-3. Plaintiff states that he has a car worth $4,500. Id. at 3. However, plaintiff stated that 24 he pays around $1,115 in monthly expenses. Id. The Court requires more explanation about how the 25 1 || plaintiff can live on a day-to-day basis with no income, and only $450 in his accounts, despite his 2 || monthly expenses. See id at 2-3. Therefore, the Court finds it cannot make a determination of □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 || IFP status at this time. However, the Court will give plaintiff another opportunity to file his IFP 4 || application. If plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff must complete a Long Form IFP 5 || application. Plaintiff also cannot leave any questions blank or simply answer the question with “$0.” 6 || Plaintiff must provide an explanation for the answer. The Court notes that plaintiff is a frequent filer in 7 || this Court and his cases are typically dismissed. The Court cautions plaintiff that his activity in this 8 || district is bordering on vexatious. 9 ACCORDINGLY, 10 IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. The IFP application (ECF No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 12 2. Plaintiff must either: (1) file a Long Form IFP application, curing the deficiencies and 13 inconsistencies noted in this Order, or (2) pay the full $405 filing fee by October 6, 2025. 14 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 15 dismissed. 16 4. The Court further ORDERS and CAUTIONS plaintiff that if she persists in filing lawsuits 17 that are frivolous, it may result in sanctions, including her being declared a vexatious litigant. 18 DATED September 4, 2025 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 LED 7 21 Hpi: Mangini x D. Couvillier HI 3 nited iteyMagisat Judge NOTICE 23 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

95 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

1 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 2 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 3 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 4 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 5 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 6 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 9 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 10 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 11 result in dismissal of the action. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25