Jacob M. Curtis v. Sunrise Mountainview Hospital, Inc.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Jacob M. Curtis, Case No. 2:26-cv-00308-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket No. 2] 9 Sunrise Mountainview Hospital, Inc., et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket 12 No. 2. 13 The Court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and 14 costs, or security therefor, by a person who has shown an inability to pay such costs. 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(a)(1). A determination of whether the plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a matter left 16 to the discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Flores v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93236, at *2 (D. 17 Nev. May 22, 2014), adopted, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93234 (D. Nev. July 9, 2014). “[T]here is no 18 formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to 19 earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). While an applicant 20 need not be absolutely destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, the applicant must 21 demonstrate an inability to pay those costs while still providing for the necessities of life. Adkins 22 v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). “Although a person’s earnings as 23 compared to the poverty line is not the deciding factor on an IFP application, the comparison does 24 provide some context.” Espinoza Rodriguez v. Canyon County, 2019 WL 3307834, at *1 (D. Id. 25 July 23, 2019). 26 Courts may look beyond an in forma pauperis application to determine an applicant’s true 27 financial condition. O’Neal v. Denise, Case No. 2:17-cv-02387-KJD-NJK, 2018 WL 1100903, at 28 *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 11, 2018) (quoting Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1035, 1037 n.3 1 (11th Cir. 2004)), adopted, 2018 WL 1092334 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2018). Courts possess discretion 2 to make a factual inquiry into the allegation of poverty. United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 3 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 4 Plaintiff’s application appears to show that affording pauper status is not warranted in this 5 case. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff attests to monthly income of $5,700 (or $68,400 per year), 6 Docket No. 2 at 1, which is orders of magnitude higher than the federal poverty level for a 7 household of five, see https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/ (last visited 8 February 13, 2026).1 That monthly income is also well above the amounts that have led to denial 9 of in forma pauperis status in other cases. See, e.g., Brunson v. Soc. Sec., 2019 WL 6709544, at 10 *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2019) (denying in forma pauperis status based on monthly income of $1,397), 11 adopted, 2019 WL 6700193 (D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2019). Moreover, while the application identifies 12 substantial monthly expenses, they appear to evidence spending that would not be expected for a 13 litigant claiming pauper status. For example, Plaintiff identifies $1,734 in car and insurance 14 payments, along with another $730 in “transportation and fuel” expenses. Docket No. 2 at 2. The 15 expenditure of nearly $2,500 each month in car and related expenses would not be expected for a 16 litigant claiming pauper status. Cf. Espinoza Rodriguez, 2019 WL 3307834, at *1.2 In addition, 17 it appears that Plaintiff’s spouse has income and may pay for at least part of the monthly expenses. 18 See Docket No. 2 at 1. When spouses share income and expenses, the spouse’s funds may be 19 considered in deciding an application to proceed in form pauperis. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 20 1236. 21 Given the circumstances, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. No later than March 13, 2026, Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee 23 or file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff continues to seek in forma 24 pauperis status, he must use the long-form application and must ensure that the form is filled out 25

26 1 The application references a spouse, two daughters, and a granddaughter, so the Court treats Plaintiff as having a family of five for present purposes. 27 2 Monthly food expenses of $1,300 would also appear quite generous for a litigant claiming 28 pauper status. 1} completely. Plaintiff must include his spouse’s finances on that application, though he may file a 2|| separate statement if he contends that his spouse’s finances should not be considered. FATLURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL. 4 The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to send Plaintiff the long-form in forma pauperis 5] application for non-prisoners. 7 Dated: February 10, 2026 Nancy J. Keppe’, \ 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28