Khari Varner v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00768
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Khari Varner, Case No. 2:26-cv-00768-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 University Medical Center of Southern 9 Nevada, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, to 13 proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 10). The application is incomplete and not on 14 the correct form. So, the Court denies it without prejudice. Plaintiff’s mail has also been 15 returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 9). The Court will therefore further order Plaintiff to update 16 his address. 17 I. Discussion. 18 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 19 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 20 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 21 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 22 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 23 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 24 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 25 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 26 (1948). 27 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 1 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 2 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 3 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 4 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 5 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 6 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 7 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 9 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 10 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 11 in forma pauperis application). 12 Plaintiff’s application is not filed on the form provided by the Court. (ECF No. 10). 13 While the form appears somewhat similar, the formatting of the questions is changed such that 14 the Court cannot determine if Plaintiff has fully answered question 3. Even if the Court did 15 consider the application, made as it is on the incorrect form, his answer to question 7 is 16 incomplete. In response to question 7, Plaintiff lists a dependent by their full name, even though 17 the question requires dependents under age 18 to be identified by initials only. Plaintiff also fails 18 to indicate his relationship with this individual and how much he contributes to their support. The 19 Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s application. 20 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 21 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 22 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 23 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 24 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 25 of money that he receives, state the amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the 26 future. 27 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. (ECF No. 1 || all applicable questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing 2 || fee in full. Since the Court denies Plaintiff's application, it does not screen the complaint at this 3 || time. 4 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis (ECF No. 10) is denied without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until April 30, 2026, to file an updated 8 || application to proceed in forma pauperis on the Court’s Long Form application! as specified in 9 || this order or pay the filing fee. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 11 || acopy of this order. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until April 30, 2026, to update his 13 || contact information as required by Local Rule IA 3-1. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to timely comply with this order may 15 || result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 16 17 DATED: March 31, 2026, ) C a ~ 18 \ 22) □□ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 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.