Khari Varner aka Khari Sekou v. United States of America

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Khari Varner aka Khari Sekou, Case No. 2:26-cv-00041-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 United States of America, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court are two applications to proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, to proceed 12 without paying the filing fee) filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 5, 7). Both applications are 13 incomplete. So, the Court denies them 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 older application, filed at ECF No. 5, Plaintiff reports making $500.00 per month 10 in both gross pay and take home pay in response to question 2. However, he does not include his 11 employer’s name and address. In response to question 3, he checks the box indicating that he 12 makes money from a “[b]usiness, profession or other self-employment,” but does not describe 13 “each source of money and state the amount that [he] received and what [he] expect[s] to receive 14 in the future,” as required by that question. In response to question 7, Plaintiff lists a dependent 15 by their full name, even though the question requires dependents under age 18 to be identified by 16 initials only. Plaintiff also fails to indicate his relationship with this individual and how much he 17 contributes to their support. Plaintiff’s application is therefore incomplete and the Court denies it. 18 Plaintiff’s more recent application is not filed on the form provided by the Court. (ECF 19 No. 7). While the form appears somewhat similar, the formatting of the questions is changed 20 such that the Court cannot determine if Plaintiff has fully answered question 3. Even if the Court 21 did consider the application, made as it is on the incorrect form, his answer to question 7 is still 22 incomplete. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s more recent application as well. 23 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 24 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 25 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 26 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 27 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 1 || of money that he receives, state the amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the 2 || future. 3 The Court denies Plaintiffs in forma pauperis applications without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 4 || 5,7). The Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer 5 || all applicable questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing 6 || fee in full. Since the Court denies Plaintiff's application, it does not screen the complaint at this 7 || time. 8 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma 10 |] pauperis (ECF No. 5, 7) are denied without prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until April 29, 2026, to file an updated 12 || application to proceed in forma pauperis on the Court’s Long Form application! as specified in 13 || this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a 14 || recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 16 || acopy of this order. 17 18 DATED: March 30, 2026, ) C ~ 19 ZS “i \ □ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS i 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court- 28 || information/forms/ under Code AO 239.