Gonzalez v. Clark County Detention Center

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02387
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 German Gonzalez, Case No. 2:24-cv-02387-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Clark County Detention Center, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff German Gonzalez filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (which 12 means without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing 13 certain information. The Court thus 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 In response to question two, Plaintiff claims to make no money from any source. While 10 Plaintiff explains that he just started a new job and has not yet received a paycheck, Plaintiff does 11 not explain how much he expects to receive in the future and does not provide his employer’s 12 name and address. Plaintiff also responds “non” to question six, which asks whether he has any 13 housing, transportation, utilities, loan payments, or other regularly monthly expenses. However, 14 on the docket, Plaintiff provides an address. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that public 15 records reveal the address is a house. But Plaintiff does not provide any details in his application 16 regarding how he pays rent or a mortgage, how he pays utilities or other bills, or how he lives 17 considering his claim to have no money and no bills. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff has 18 omitted information from the application. As a result, the Court cannot determine whether 19 Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 20 The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis 21 application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 22 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 23 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 24 of money that he receives, state the amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the 25 future. 26 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 27 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 1 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 2 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until March 10, 2025, to file an updated 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 8 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 9 be dismissed. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 11 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 12 instructions.1 13 14 DATED: February 7, 2025. 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-