Jeremiah Allen Ruth v. Uber

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02403
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMIAH ALLEN RUTH, No. 2:25–cv–02403-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 UBER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 19 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for 20 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an 21 action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees). ECF 22 No. 2. 23 The motion makes an insufficient showing to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). As the 24 Ninth Circuit has recognized “one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP 25 statute. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff 26 seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 27 (internal citation and quotation omitted). The current application contains many omissions. 28 Every answer on the form is either “0” or “N/A”. Plaintiff has also not answered the questions 1 | concerning whether he has income from the following: 1) disability, or worker’s compensation 2 | benefits; 2) gifts, or inheritances; or 3) any other sources. ECF No. 2 at 1. When asked to list 3 || monthly expenses and debts or financial obligations, Plaintiff lists “N/A”. It thus appears 4 || Plaintiff has no expenses or debts, and Plaintiff has not fully completed the questions concerning 5 || income. The Court cannot make a determination of whether Plaintiff qualifies to proceed IFP. If 6 | Plaintiff has no monthly expenses, assets, or debts, he shall so state or indicate rather than 7 || responding “N/A”. Plaintiff shall also complete question #3 concerning income. ECF No. 2 at 1. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff shall supplement the application to proceed IFP to address the deficiencies set 10 forth herein within 14 days of the date of this Order. 11 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee. 12 3. If Plaintiff does not supplement the application or pay the filing fee within 14 days, 13 the Court will issue findings and recommendations that the motion for IFP be denied 14 and the action dismissed. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | DATED: September 30, 2025 md 18 SEAN C. RIORDAN 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28