James Martin v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.; et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01929
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 James Martin, Case No. 2:25-cv-01929-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Caesars Entertainment, Inc.; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff James Martin filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (which 12 means to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is 13 missing 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 On his application, Plaintiff responds to question 2 by stating that he receives $870.30 in 10 gross wages, but $0.0 in take home wages. It is unclear what portion of the $870.30 that Plaintiff 11 identified, if any, that he takes home. And, although Plaintiff states that he receives pay or 12 wages, he does not identify whether he is employed and, if so, his employer’s name and address. 13 Plaintiff responds to question 3 by indicating that he receives disability or worker’s compensation 14 payments. He writes that this comes from Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”). But 15 Plaintiff does not completely answer question 3 because he does not describe “each source of 16 money and…the amount that you received and what you expect to receive in the future.” In 17 response to question 5, Plaintiff explains that he has a vehicle. But he does not list the vehicle’s 18 approximate value. It appears that Plaintiff put his response to question 6 (asking for any 19 housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses) under 20 question 8 (which asks for debts or financial obligations). So, it is unclear if Plaintiff has 21 additional debts or financial obligations along with his monthly expenses. 22 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 23 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 24 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 25 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 26 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 27 of money that he receives, state the amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the 1 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 2 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 3 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 4 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 5 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 7 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until November 13, 2025, to file an 9 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis1 as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. 10 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 11 this case be dismissed. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 13 a copy of this order. 14 15 DATED: October 14, 2025 16 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-