Kadmiri v. MGM Grand Intl.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01514
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Yousef Kadmiri, Case No. 2:25-cv-01514-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 MGM Grand Intl., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Yousef Kadmiri filed two identical applications to proceed in forma 12 pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF Nos. 5, 8). However, 13 Plaintiff’s applications are missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s 14 applications without prejudice. Additionally, the Court informs Plaintiff that filing applications 15 repeatedly will not expedite this Court’s ruling on them, but will instead slow it down. 16 I. Discussion. 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 18 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 19 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 20 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 21 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 22 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 23 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 24 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 25 (1948). 26 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 27 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 1 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 2 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 3 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 4 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 5 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 6 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 8 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 9 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 10 in forma pauperis application). 11 On the applications, Plaintiff claims to makes no money from employment or any other 12 source. Plaintiff also claims to have no bills of any kind. However, on the docket, Plaintiff 13 includes an address. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that public records reveal the 14 address is a home. Plaintiff does not provide any details in the application regarding how he pays 15 rent or a mortgage, how he pays utilities or other bills, or how he lives considering his claim to 16 have no money and no bills. 17 In response to question 5, Plaintiff indicates that he has two non-operating vehicles. 18 However, he does not answer the remainder of that question because he does not describe the 19 vehicles’ approximate value. In response to question 8, Plaintiff indicates that he has debts from 20 credit cards and medical bills. But Plaintiff does not respond to the remainder of that question 21 because he does not describe the amounts owed and to whom they are payable. 22 The Court finds that Plaintiff has omitted information from the application. As a result, 23 the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court 24 will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court 25 further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any 26 question without providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave 27 any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that he receives, state the 1 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications 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 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that his habit of filing repeated applications will not increase 5 the speed with which the Court is able to proceed in this case. The Court has a heavy docket. 6 Plaintiff’s case is just one of hundreds before the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s repetitive filings 7 only slow the pace of this litigation. 8 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma 10 pauperis (ECF Nos. 5, 8) are denied without prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 10, 2025, to: (1) file an 12 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. 13 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 14 this case be dismissed. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 16 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 17 instructions.1 18 19 DATED: September 10, 2025 20 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-