Giovanna Paola Laija Corrales v. Choice Cleaning Solutions

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Giovanna Paola Laija Corrales, Case No. 2:26-cv-02677-CDS-DJA Plaintiff, Order v. Choice Cleaning Solutions, Defendant. Pro se Plaintiff Giovanna Paola Laija Corrales has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and will give Plaintiff another chance to apply to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. 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 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 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 leaves question 1 blank on her application. While the Court can infer that Plaintiff is not incarcerated, she must make that clear on her application. And Plaintiff must make it clear whether she is employed or not. Plaintiff indicates that she is currently unemployed, but inconsistent with that, she reports that her take-home wages are $800.00 per month. In response to question 3(f), Plaintiff indicates that she receives income from another source other than employment, but she does not describe that source of income. Plaintiff also appears to indicate that she has no housing, transportation, utilities, loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses in response to question 6. On the docket, Plaintiff includes an address and a telephone number. Public records reveal that the address is a residential property. But Plaintiff provides no information regarding whether she pays rent or utilities and whether she pays her phone bill. In response to question 7, she also appears to indicate that she has children who are dependent on her for support, but she does not specify their names and how much she contributes to their support. In response to question 8, which requires Plaintiff to list debts and financial obligations, Plaintiff writes: “I pay for my children[‘]s expenses and share custody and provide their health insur[a]nce[,] food[,] [and] clothes.” It is unclear how much Plaintiff contributes to these expenses. Plaintiff must do her best to state the amounts of the debt she owes and to whom they are payable. ] Given these issues, it appears that Plaintiff has omitted information from the application. The Court therefore cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one 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 the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each 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. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 2, 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 acopy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its instructions.! DATED: September 2, 2026,

DANIEL J. ALBREGT$ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court- information/forms/ under Code AO 240.