Janell Lynn Khamvongsa v. Fleetcor Technologies, et al

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01743
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Janell Lynn Khamvongsa, 2:25-cv-01743-CDS-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 6 vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) 7 Fleetcor Techologies, et al, 8 Defendant. 9

10 Pro se plaintiff Janell Lynn Khamvongsa1 filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 11 (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice, with leave to 12 refile. 13 I. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 15 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 16 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 17 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 18 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 19 20 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 21 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 22 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 23 24 1 The IFP application lists a second plaintiff named Jermaine Graves. The Complaint, however, has 25 Graves’s name stricken as a plaintiff, and the docket only lists Khamvongsa as the plaintiff. The Court considers the inclusion of Graves as a typographical error but cautions plaintiff not to include Graves if she refiles her IFP application. The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 1 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 2 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his poverty, district courts have the 3 4 discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed in 5 forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 6 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 7 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 8 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 9 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 10 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 11 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 12 pauperis application). 13 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 14 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 15 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 16 17 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears 18 that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant 19 qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct 20 form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form 21 so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. 22 NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 23 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 24 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 25 2 Il. PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION

5 Plaintiff filed the short form IFP application. ECF No. /. Plaintiff states that all the questions, 3 || except question four, on the short form are “N/A” meaning non-applicable to her. /d. In response to 4 || question four, she states that she has fifty-five cents in her bank account. /d. Plaintiff does not explain 5 || how the rest of the questions, such as questions about her income and her bills (like what she spends on 6 || groceries) are inapplicable to her. Jd. The Court cannot determine if plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. 7 || The Court will allow plaintiff another opportunity to show that she qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff || must resubmit the long form application. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form with ° detailed explanations about her income and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank or respond that a question is “N/A” without an explanation. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee. IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without

4 prejudice. 15 2. By November 3, 2025, plaintiff shall either (1) file the long form application to proceed in forma

16 pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a civil 17 action. 18 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 19 dismissed with prejudice. 20 DATED October 2, 2025.

% High. Maximiliang’ Compillier | Onited States Magistrate Jjid

25 [/

NOTICE 1 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 2 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 3 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 7 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 8 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 9 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 10 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written 11 notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon 12 each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. 13 Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4