Kadmiri v. City of Henderson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01693
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Yousef Elamri Kadmiri and Miriam Case No. 2:25-cv-01693-RFB-DJA 6 Elamri Kadmiri,

7 Plaintiffs, Order

8 v.

9 MGM Grand International, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Yousef Elamri Kadmiri filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Yousef’s1 14 application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Yousef’s application without 15 prejudice. 16 Additionally, pro se Plaintiff Miriam Elamri Kadmiri has not filed an application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis. But Miriam must file her own application if she wishes to proceed in 18 this action without paying the filing fee. So, the Court will give Miriam thirty days to file a 19 separate application. 20 I. Yousef’s application. 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 22 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 23 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 25 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 26

27 1 The Court refers to Yousef Elamri Kadmiri and Miriam Elamri Kadmiri using their first names 1 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 2 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 3 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 4 (1948). 5 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 6 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 7 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 8 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 9 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 10 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 11 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 12 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 13 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 14 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 15 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 16 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 17 in forma pauperis application). 18 On the application, Yousef claims to makes no money from employment or any other 19 source. Yousef also claims to have no bills of any kind. However, on the docket, Yousef 20 includes an address. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that public records reveal the 21 address is a home. Yousef does not provide any details in the application regarding how he pays 22 rent or a mortgage, how he pays utilities or other bills, or how he lives considering his claim to 23 have no money and no bills. 24 In response to question 5, Yousef indicates that he has two non-operating vehicles. 25 However, he does not answer the remainder of that question because he does not describe the 26 vehicles’ approximate value. In response to question 8, Yousef indicates that he has debts from 27 credit cards and medical bills. But Yousef does not respond to the remainder of that question 1 The Court finds that Yousef has omitted information from the application. As a result, the 2 Court cannot determine whether Yousef qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will 3 give Yousef one opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court further 4 orders that Yousef may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question 5 without providing an explanation for each of the questions. Yousef also may not leave any 6 questions blank. Yousef must describe each source of money that he receives, state the amount 7 he received, and what he expects to receive in the future. 8 The Court denies Yousef’s in forma pauperis applications without prejudice. The Court 9 gives Yousef 30 days to file an updated application. Yousef must fully answer all applicable 10 questions and check all applicable boxes. Yousef may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 11 II. Miriam must file her own application. 12 Although both Yousef and Miriam bring this action, only Yousef has applied to proceed in 13 forma pauperis. However, “[w]here there are multiple parties in a single action, the plaintiffs 14 may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.” 15 Martinez v. Lutz, No. 1:18-cv-00999-DAD-SKO, 2018 WL 3924266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 16 2018) (citation omitted); see also Anderson v. California, No. 10-cv-2216-MMA-AJB, 2010 WL 17 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“[A]lthough only one filing fee needs to be paid per 18 case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must qualify for [in 19 forma pauperis] status.”). So, if Miriam wishes to proceed in this action without paying the filing 20 fee, she must each file her own application to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Yousef’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Yousef and Miriam have until October 10, 2025, to 25 each file their own individual applications to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order 26 or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to 27 the district judge that this case be dismissed. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Yousef 2 and Miriam a copy of this order and two copies of the Short Form application to proceed in forma 3 pauperis and its instructions.2 4 5 DATED: September 10, 2025 6 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 2 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-