Igor Adamovich v. Pizza Hut, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01670
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 IGOR ADAMOVICH, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-1670-RSL 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 PIZZA HUT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled 15 action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff disclosed no income from any source, no 16 money in cash or accounts, no valuable property, and no monthly expenses. (Id.) 17 On September 2, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. # 4.) The Court 18 explained that it could not determine Plaintiff’s ability to pay court fees and costs because 19 Plaintiff failed to explain how he was able to pay for his basic living expenses without any 20 income or savings. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was ordered to show cause by September 25, 2025, why 21 this Court should not recommend that his IFP application be denied or to submit an amended IFP 22 application providing the required information. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has filed no response. 23 1 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 2 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 3 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 4 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523

5 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 6 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 7 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” 8 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations 9 omitted). 10 Plaintiff has failed to correct the deficiencies in his IFP application, as identified in this 11 Court’s Order to Show Cause (dkt. # 4) and explained above. After careful consideration of 12 Plaintiff’s IFP application, the governing law, and the balance of the record, this Court 13 RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) be DENIED and that Plaintiff be 14 directed to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days after entry of the Court’s Order adopting

15 this Report and Recommendation. If no filing fee is paid within thirty days of the Court’s Order, 16 the Clerk of Court should close the case. A proposed order accompanies this Report and 17 Recommendation. 18 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 19 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 20 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 22 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 23 1 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 2 ready for consideration by the District Judge on October 14, 2025. 3 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Robert 4 S. Lasnik.

5 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025. 6 A 7 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23